DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 243/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross objections related to the assessments made under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following search operations. The primary issues revolved around the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credits, deemed rental income, and changes in the valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal examined the merits of each addition and the legal provisions applicable, including the interpretation of sections 153A and 153C concerning the use of incriminating material found during searches. The Tribunal's decisions were influenced by precedents and principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, emphasizing the need for assessments to be based on material directly related to the assessee and found during the search.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113038 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. CIT (229 ITR 383), CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (208 ITR 465), Shri Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), Smt. Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), DCIT v/s. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360), CIT v/s. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (208 Taxman 35), CIT v/s. Apex Therm Packaging P Ltd (42 Taxman.com 473), CIT v/s. Dharmdev Finance (2014) 43 Taxman.com 395, CIT v/s. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta (2014) 41 Taxman.com 550/224, Jute Corporation of India Ltd (1990)...S3 Taxman.85 (SC), United Commercial Bank vis. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman.601 (SC), PN. Mohd Meere Khan v/s. CIT (19691 73 1TR 735 (SC), Kirit Dahyabhai Patel - 80 Taxamn.com 162, Ram Prakash Mahawar vs. DCIT (115 taxmann.com 150), Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (102 ITD 375), Smt. Bhanuben Kantibhai Savilla vs. DCIT (111 taxmann.com 150), CIT Vs. Saumya Construction (307 ITR 202), CIT Vs. Triveni Eng. !nd. Ltd (198 Taxman 194), CIT Vs. Shrikant Mohta (95 taxmann.com 224), CIT Vs. Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (75 taxmann.com 70)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEES OWN RESIDENCEHENCE IT IS SELF OCCUPIED
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Question of law; Tangible material; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries; Tax effect; Revised return; Documents seized; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 69; 148; 132; 28; 139; 143(3); 153A; 80IB; 139(5); 208; 139(1); 158BC; 43; 73; 13; 153; 22; 153C

Judgement Text

1 आयकरअपील यअ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No(s) IT(SS)A No./C.O Asset. Year(s) Appeal(s) by Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1-10 IT(SS)A No.243, 244,245,246&247 /Ahd/2018 With C.O Nos.195, 196, 163, 197&198 /Ahd/2019 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 D.C.I.T., Central Circle 1(2), Ahmedabad. Smt. Giraben AtulbhaiShah, 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Auda garden, Prahaladnagar, Ahmedabaded PAN: ALHPS1801P 11. IT(SS)A No.239/Ahd/2018 2015-16 Smt. Giraben AtulbhaiShah, 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Auda garden, Prahaladnagar, Ahmedabaded PAN: ALHPS1801P A.C.I.T., Central Circle 1(2), Ahmedabad. 12-17 IT(SS)A Nos.268 to 270/Ahd/2018 With C.O nos.204 to 206/Ahd/2019 2009-10 to 2011-12 D.C.I.T. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. Smt. Swatiben Anilbhai Shah, 17, Haveli Appartment, Opp. While House, 2 nd Lane, Panchavati, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad PAN: ALHPS1798K 18-25 IT(SS)A No.253 to 256/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.200 to 203/Ahd/2019 2012-13 to 2015-16 D.C.I.T. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. Smt. Swatiben Anilbhai Shah, 17, Haveli Appartment, Opp. While House, 2 nd Lane, Panchavati, 2 (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.R Assesseeby : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R स ु नवाईक तार ख/Date of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 Ambawadi, Ahmedabad PAN: ALHPS1798K 26-27 IT(SS)A No.249/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.199/Ahd/2019 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad Smt. Kusumben Hiralal Shah, 17, Haveli Appartment, Panchvati Park Society, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. PAN: ALJPS5140F 28-29. IT(SS)A No.258/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.207/Ahd/2019 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar Shah, 25, Alok Shantinagar Society, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: ADFPS0573E 30-31 IT(SS) No.259/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.208/Ahd/2019 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar Shah, 25, Alok Shantinagar Society, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad PAN : ADPFS0573E 32-33 IT(SS)A No.261/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.209/Ahd/2019 2014-15 D.C.I.T. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar Shah, 25, Alok Shantinagar Society, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad PAN : ADPFS0573E 3 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: 2. The captionedappeals and COs havebeen filed at the instance of Revenue and different assessee against the separate orders of the LearnedCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Ahmedabad,arising in the matter of assessmentorder passed under s.153Ar.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the respective Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 82 days in filing all the COs. captioned above by the assessee. There was condonation petition filed by the assessee dated 26-2-2020. It was submitted that the assessee inadvertently could not hand over the relevant papers of the appeal filed by the revenue to her husband. Thus, the delay has occurred in filing the Cos. by the assessee. The assessee to this effect has filed the affidavit. In view of above, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the delay in filing the COs. occurred inadvertently. Therefore, the delay in filing the Cos. should be condoned. 3.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to condone such inordinate delay but left the issue at the discretion of the Bench. 3.2 We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both the sides. It appears to us that the assessee has good case on merit. But there is a technical defect in the COs, since they were not filed within the period of limitation. There was the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before us. However, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee. It is important to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. 4 Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down certain principles for considering the condonation petition for filing the appeal which are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 3.4 From the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we note that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred rather than deciding the matter on the basis of technical defect. We also note that there is no allegation from the Revenue that the appeal was not filed within the time deliberately. Thus, we condone the delay of 82 days in filing the COs and proceed to hear the matter on merit for adjudication. 4. First, we take up IT(SS) No. 243/Ahd/2018, an appeal by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben A Shah for the AY 2010-11 as lead year. 5. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,25,000/- made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act considering the credits as unexplained. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.65,16,542/- made on account of unexplained expenditure (interest on unsecured loans). 5 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,30,737/- made by the AO considering deemed income from house property by taking 10% of book value as deemed rental income u/s.23(i) of the IT Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,450/- on account of change in valuation of closing stock. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.6. 6. The cross objections raised by the assessee in CO No. 195/Ahd/2019 reads as under: Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A ignoring fact that the approval u/s.153D given by the JCIT is without application of mind and accordingly assessment is required to be quashed. It be so held now. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds at or before the time of final hearing. 6.1 The assessee has vide application dated 03-08-2021 pleaded before us for admitting the additional grounds of objection which read as under: Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'bie ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'bie ITAT. 1.Both the lower authorities erred in law and in facts in estimating notional rental value under section 23 of the Act ignoring fact that said property is owned jointly and being used for residential purpose by appellant and accordingly no addition is required to be made. The details of propertyis tabulated hereunder: Sr. No. Property Owned by Occupied by 2 25, Aaryavrat II 1. Giraben Atulbhai Shah 2. Swati Anilbhai Shah Giraben Atulbhai Shah 2. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(l)(b) ignoring fact that material relied on making addition is found from the premises of third person and accordingly assessment order ought to have passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A (1)(b) r.w.s 153C of the Act and failing which renders the order passed as void ab initio and required to be quashed. 6 Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 6.2 It was pleaded by the assessee in the application filed for the admission of the additional grounds of objection that the issue raised in the additional grounds go to the root of the matter and the necessary facts are already available on record as they are arising from the order of authorities below. Accordingly, it was prayed by the learned AR for the assessee that the same should be admitted for adjudication. 6.3 On the other hand, the learned DR opposed to admit the additional grounds of objections on the reasoning that it was not raised before the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 has held as under:- “Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of the item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. 7.1 From the above, it is transpired that the view that the Tribunal is confined only to those issues arising out of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is too narrow a view to describe the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which were on record during the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to 7 consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Since, the claim of the assessee is purely legal claim and entire facts are available on record. Thus, it is not justified in not admitting the purely legal ground raised by the assessee for the first time. Accordingly, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee. 8. The first issue interconnected issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of loan and interest thereon for Rs. 10,81,25,000/- and Rs. 65,16,542/- respectively. 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the trading and investment activity of shares/ securities. There was a search operation under section 132 of the Act dated 04-12-2014, carried out in the case of “Barter Group” and the assessee being part of the group was also subject to the same search proceedings. During the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs. 10,72,75,000/- and Rs. 8,50,000/- from Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah and M/s Labdhi Finance (Prop- Shri Atul Hiralal Shah). The assessee in support of identity, genuineness of loan and credit worthiness of the party furnished copy of confirmation letter, bank statement, ITR Acknowledgment. The assessee also submitted that loan parties from whom she has taken loan falls under the jurisdiction of the same AO. Hence, all necessary details were readily available with respect to the loans in dispute. It was further submitted that the assessee is liable only to explain the source of credit in the books of accounts and the not the source of source under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 9.1 However, the AO found that the assessee is only able to establish the identity of the loan creditor. The genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties were not proved. The AO also found that the assessee group has 8 been indulged in the activity of manipulation of capital market and also in the business of real estate activities. The group has generated unaccounted income from these activities which were layered into different banks accounts in the guise of unsecured loan and share capitals etc. The AO further found that the bank account of the loan party namely Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah was credited by transferring the fund from the account of M/s Labdhi Finance and M/s Rajesh Enterprise Ltd (REL) which in turn was transferred to the assessee. During the course of search, material bearing pages 8 to 11 of Annexure A-6 were found which suggested that the bank of M/s REL was credited by accommodation entries i.e. cheque in lieu of cash. The impugned pages were containing the details of cash receipt and payment which were getting corroborated with the credit entries in the bank account of M/s REL. The AO also found that Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, the main person of “barter group” has not filed return under section 153A of the Act but filed settlement appeal. Therefore, the AO was of the view that genuineness of loan credit and credit worthiness of the party was not proved. The AO also held that the fact that addition was also made in the hands of loan creditors will not affect the position of the assessee from making the addition. The AO in this regard referred the judgment of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in case of Trinetra Commerce & Trade Pvt Ltd reported in 75 taxmann.com 70. Thus, the AO treated the amount of unsecured loan of Rs. 10,81,25,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the interest amount of Rs. 34,50,353 paid on loan taken from Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah and Rs. 30,66,189/- on account of loan taken from M/s charmi Investment held as unexplained in earlier year and added to the total income of the assessee. 10. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). 10.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that she has received loan from M/s Labdhi Finance, a propriety concern, of her husband Shri Atul Hiralal Shah and from the brother of her husband Shri Jignesh Hiralal shah. Both 9 are assessed by the same AO. The amount of loan transaction was carried out through banking channel and the account is running one where amounts were received viz-a-viz paid back. In the year under consideration, an amount of 10,72,75,000/- was received and amount of Rs. 2,94,00,000/- was paid from/ to Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah. Likewise, an amount Rs. 8,50,000/- was received from M/s Labdhi Finance and an amount of Rs. 21 lakh was also given. On credit balance, the interest was paid through banking channel. Therefore, the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act was duly discharged. 10.2 The finding of the AO that Shri Jignesh Hiralal shah received amount from M/s REL where incriminating materials were suggesting the accommodation entry received by M/s REL cannot be made basis for adverse inference for the reason that she (the assessee) entered into transactions with Shri Jignesh and Atul Hiralal Shah. 10.3 The facts in the case of M/s Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd. reported in 75 taxmann.com 70 where the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decided the issue in favour of Revenue are different from the facts in the present case. In above case, the assessee was not able to establish the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditor whereas in the present case she (the assessee) has duly discharged the primary onus imposed under section 68 of the Act. 10.4 The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 9.1 Facts of the case, submission of the appellant, assessment order, remand report & rejoinder have been considered carefully. During the year, the appellant had taken loan of R.8,50,000/- from M/s. Labdhi Finance (Prop, shri Atul H. Shah) and Rs.10,72,75,000/- from Shri Jignesh H Shah. These loan were taken through regular banking channels and reflected in the regular books of accounts. The appellant filed confirmations from the creditor during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Shri Atul H. Shah , Prop of Labdhi Finance & Shri Jignesh H. Shah were searched with the appellant and their assessments u/s. 153A of the Act have been made by the AO, who is the AO of the appellant. In the case of Shri Atul H. Shah prop, of Labdhi Finance for AY 2008-09, income has been determined more than 800 crore. In the case of Shri Jignesh H. Shah, the AO assessed income u/s. 153A more than Rs. 500 crore from AY 2009-10 to 2015-16.In the 10 bank account of both the creditors, there is no cash deposits immediately prior to loan given to the appellant. All these facts clearly prove that the appellant had discharged onus cast upon her to substantiate the genuineness of the credits. The creditors are assessed with the AO of the appellant and subjected to search by the department prove their identity beyond doubt. The appellant filed confirmation from creditors, transaction is through regular banking channels &' reflected\in the books of accounts of both theparties, prove the genuineness of the transactions. The creditors have been assessed by the same AO and huge income has been determined in the hands of the creditor. This fact coupled with the fact that there is no cash deposit in the bank account of the creditor immediate before giving loan to the appellant, prove crediiworthiness of the creditor. This fact shows that a!! the ingredients to prove the genuineness of credits have been complied with. Keeping in view the discussion above, the additions of Rs.10,81,25,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act is not found justified. Moreover, the case of the appellant has been found covered by the following binding judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. In all these judgements, it has been held that if amount was received through regular banking channels, additions made u/s. 68 of the Act are not sustainable. i) DCIT v/s. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360 (Guj) ii) CIT v/s. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava - 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) iii) CIT v/s. Apex Therm Packaging P Ltd - 42 Taxman.com 473 (Guj) iv) CIT v/s. Dharmdev Finance - (2014) 43 Taxman.com 395 (Guj) v) CIT v/s. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta (2014) 41 Taxman.com 550/224 (Guj) Looking to the facts of the case, as narrated above and binding judgements, the additions made by the AO u/s. 68 amounting to Rs.10,81,25,000/- are not found justified, hence, deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 10. Third ground of appeal is against the additions of Rs. 65, 16,542,'- made by the AO. The AO found that the appellant had paid interest of Rs.30,66,189/- to M/s. Charmi Investment upon the loan taken, which was hsld as non genuine while passing assessment order for AY 2009-10. hence, this interest is disallowed. As the loan taken from Charmi Investment has been held as genuine in the appeal decided by me for AY 2009-10, interest disallowed is not found justified, hence, additions of Rs.30,66 : 189/- are deleted.It is important to mention that interest was paid to M/s. Charmi Investment by regular banking channels and after deduction of TDS. The interest income has been reflected in the books of accounts of M/s. Charmi Investment, prop concern of Shri Atul H. Shah. Shri Atul H. Shah is also assessed by the same AO and this interest income has been taxed in the hands of Shri Atul H. Shah, who is assessed at higher tax rate. I ooking to these facts, additions made by the AO are deleted. Regarding the additions of Rs,34,50,353/- made by the AO for interest paid to Shri Jignesh Shah, as the credit was considered by the AO as non-genuine. But as held in the paras above that the unsecured loan of Rs.10,72,75,0007- from Shri Jignesh Shah is genuine & additions have been deleted, thus the interest paid on this amount is also held as genuine. Further, Shri Jignesh Shah is assessed to tax at higher rate than the appellant and has shown this amount as interest income in his books of accounts, therefore, the additions made by the AO are not found justified, hence, deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11 12. The learned DR before us contended that it is the onus upon the assessee to justify the cash credit in the manner provided under section 68 of the Act but the assessee failed to discharge the same. 12.1 On the other hand, the learned AR before us has filed two paper books running from pages 1 to 230 and 1 to 123 and submitted that all the necessary details with respect to the loan parties were already available with the AO as the AO was also having jurisdiction over the loan parties. As such, the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act. 12.2 Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 68 of the Act fastens the liability on the assessee to provide the identity of the lenders, establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to justify the cash credit entries under Section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enough. “ 13.1 Now first we proceed to understand the identity of the party. The identity of the party refers existence of such party which can be proven based on evidences. As such the identity of a party can be established by furnishing the name, address and PAN detail, bank details, ITR etc. 13.2 The next stage comes to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Genuineness of transaction refers what has been asserted is true and authentic. A genuine transaction must be proved to be genuine in all respect not merely on a piece of a paper. The documentary evidences should not be a mask to cover the 12 actual transaction or designed in way to present the transaction as true but same is not. Genuineness of transaction can be proved by submitting confirmation of the parties along the details of mode of transaction but merely showing transaction carried out through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness. As such the same should also be proved by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Shri Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. 13.3 The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy-creditworthiness.” 13.4 Similarly in The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, the word "creditworthy" has been defined as under:- "creditworthy, adj. of one who is a good risk as a borrower." 13.5 It the duty of the assessee to establish that creditor party has capacity to advance such loan and having requisite fund in its books of account and banks. The capacity to advance loan can be established by showing sufficient income, capital and reserve or other fund in the hands of creditor. It is required by the AO to find out the financial strength of the creditor to advance loan with judicious approach and in accordance with materials available on record but not in arbitrary and mechanical manner. 13.6 In the light of the above discussion, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on hand. We find that during the assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act, the details such as copy of PAN, ITR, ledger account, bank statement and confirmations from the loan creditorswere filed by the assessee. Furthermore, the AO of the loan creditors and the assessee was the same and all the necessary details were already available with him of the loan creditors. However, the AO 13 without pointing out any deficiency in the above primary documents held that the assessee failed to explain the genuineness of the unsecured loan. The view of the AO was based on the fact that during the search proceedings, certain incriminating materials found from the premises of other person who were part of the group search were suggesting that the assessee group was engaged in unaccounted business activity wherein unaccounted cash was generated which have been utilized for making deposit in the bank of individual and other entities controlled by the assessee group and the same amount was layered in to bank of the assessee in the form of unsecured loan. However, we find that those materials were neither found from the premises of the assessee nor belonging or pertaining to the assessee. 13.7 Moving further, we find that loan amount being Rs. 10,72,75,000/- and Rs. 8.5 Lakhwas credited from the account of the parties namely Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah and M/s Labdhi Finance (a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah), these two parties was also subject to same search proceeding and subject to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the identity of these two parties were proven beyond doubt. The assesse has furnished copy of confirmation from these parties, transaction was carried out through banking channel, and other details such as books of account, financial statement et. were available before the AO. The AO has not pointed any defect in these material, thus genuineness of transaction also got fulfilled. These two parties have declared substantial income regularly in the return of income and also having enough fund in the form of capital, unsecured loan, thus the credit worthiness also gets established. As far as creditworthiness of the loan parties is concerned, the same can be viewed from a different angle. Undoubtedly, huge additions were made in the assessments framed with respect to the loan parties under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. If these additions are deleted by the higher forum, then it becomes evident that there was sufficient fund available with the loan creditors. Likewise, if these additions are confirmed by the higher forum, then also it 14 becomes evident that there was sufficient fund available with the loan creditors. In our considered view, in either of the case, the creditworthiness of the parties cannot be doubted. 13.8 Likewise, we find from ledger accounts of the loan parties, the same is running account and the assessee has also given money to the said parties and on credit balance interest was also paid. We further note that all the transactions of receipts and payments between the assessee and loan parties were made through banking channel. Once the amount received through banking channel and the repayment of the same along with interestwas also made through banking channel,then the genuineness cannot be doubted. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein it was held as under: “The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques.” 13.9 In view of the above elaborate discussion and after considering facts in totality, we hereby hold that the assessee on merits discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act.Once the loan amount credited in the books of the assessee found to be genuine and addition under section 68 of the Act is deleted, in our considered view the corresponding interest expenses against such loan is to be held as genuine unless revenue brought any materials on record suggesting that the interest cost was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. The AO has not brought any such material on record. 13.10 The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd. reported in 75 taxmann.com 70 cannot be applied in the given facts of the case. In that case, the persons who have acquired the shares in the company were not traceable and therefore the identity of those parties were not established. Once the identity was not established, the 15 question of placing reliance on the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties does not arise. However, in the case on hand, the identity of the parties who have given loan to the assessee was established beyond doubt and the same was also accepted by the revenue. Accordingly, we are of the view that, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court cannot be applied in the case on hand. Besides the above, the contrary judgements are available of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in favour of the assessee involving identical facts and circumstances which are binding on us. Thus, we are reluctant to place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 13.11 With respect to interest of Rs. 30,66,189.00 on the loan taken from M/s Charmi investment in the earlier year, we find that M/s Charmi investment is the proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah who is the husband of the assessee. In the earlier, the learned CIT-A was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO which was further challenged by the Revenue in the appeal before the ITAT but the appeal was dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 14-8-2019 in ITSS No. 242/AHD/2018 on account of low tax effect. As such, the issue in the earlier year was not disposed of by the ITAT on merit. However, the facts of the dispute of the earlier year viz a viz the current year are same in the sense that the assessee has also taken loan from her husband in the year under consideration which has been deleted by the ITAT as evident from the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, the basis adopted by the learned CIT-A for the earlier year viz a viz for the year under consideration was the same which has been confirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, in view of above detailed discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of deemed rental income of Rs. 4,30,737/- only. 16 15. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee was having several house properties other than the self-occupied house. However, the rental income under section 23(1) of the Act was not shown from all house properties i.e. income was shown from few properties only. Therefore, the AO estimated the rental income of Rs.4,30,737/- only from remaining house properties being @ 10% of book value of such house properties. 15.1 Hence, the AO as per the above calculation shown in the table added the Rental income of Rs. 4,30,737/- to the total income of the assessee. 16. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who estimated the rental income @ 3% of book value of property. Thus, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition in part by observing as under: 11. Next ground of appeal is against the additions of Rs.4,30,737/- considering deemed income from house property. The AO found that the appellant is owner of more than one residential property but did not return any rental income from such properties, therefore, the AO by taking 10% of book value as deemed rental income u/s. 23(i), made the additions. The appellant contended that these properties are used for her business purposes, therefore, no deemed rental income be assessed. Alternatively, the appellant contended that deemed rental value taken by the AO @ 10% of book value is too high whereas in the market, residential rentals are 1-2% of the capital value of the property. The contention of the appellant that these properties were used for her business purpose has not been substantiated by any evidence : hence, it is dismissed. The other contention of the appellant that deemed rental income @ 10% of book value is excessive, is found acceptable. It is a fact that residential rental are 2-3% of the capital value- These facts can be ascertained through various sites like Magic Bricks, 99m Acre etc. On these sites, capital value &rental value of same location is available. On going through these sites, it is found that rental value of residential properties is above 2-3% of the capital value. Therefore, additions made by the AO is restricted to 3% of the capital value. Thus, additions of Rs.1,29,221/- ( 3% of Rs.43,07,370/-) are confirmed and remaining ditions of Rs.3,01,516/- are deleted. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before us. The Revenue is in appeal against reduction of rental income from 10% of the book value of house property to 3%. On the other hand, the assessee vide additional ground of cross objection is against the estimation of rent on joint property situated at 25, Aryavart-II which is used for 17 residential purpose by the appellant assessee. The relevant ground of assessee’s cross objection reads as under: Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'bie ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'bie ITAT. 1.Both the lower authorities erred in law and in facts in estimating notional rental value under section 23 of the Act ignoring fact that said property is owned jointly and being used for residential purpose by appellant and accordingly no addition is required to be made. The details of propertyis tabulated hereunder: Sr. No. Property Owned by Occupied by 2 25, Aaryavrat II 1. Giraben Atulbhai Shah 2. Swati Anilbhai Shah Giraben Atulbhai Shah 2. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(l)(b) ignoring fact that material relied on making addition is found from the premises of third person and accordingly assessment order ought to have passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A (1)(b) r.w.s 153C of the Act and failing which renders the order passed as void ab initio and required to be quashed. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 18. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 19. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee is the owner of several residential houses but has shown rental income only from few house properties. Therefore, the AO estimated rent at 10% of book value of remaining house properties which was reduced by the learned CIT(A) at 3% of book value of such house properties. Now the revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before us. 19.1 The provisions of section 22 of the Act provide that annual value of the property being building and land appurtenant thereto other than the property 18 which is used for business or profession purposes would be chargeable to income under the head income from house property. The provision of section 22 reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from house property". 19.2 The annual value of property has been defined under section 23 of the Act which reads under: Annual value how determined. 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or (c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable : Provided that the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property shall be deducted (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are actually paid by him. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section, the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realise. (2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at any other place, he has to reside at that other place in a building not belonging to him, the annual value of such house or part of the house shall be taken to be nil. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if— (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house— 19 (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of one of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; (b) the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house in respect of which the assessee has exercised an option under clause (a), shall be determined under sub-section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. 19.3 The clause (a) subsection (1) of section 23 provides that the annual value of property shall be deemed to be sum for which property might reasonably be let from year to year as reduced by municipal taxes paid, if any. The clause (b) and (c) to subsection (1) of section 23 provides that in case of property let out, then the annual value will be actual rent received or receivable by the assessee. The provision of sub-section (2) & (3) deal with self-occupied properties and provides that the annual of self-occupied property will be nil subject to the condition that such property not let out wholly and partially any time during the year or no other benefit derived from such property by the assessee. Sub-section (4) deals with the situation where assessee is owner of more than one house property but same was not let out. The provision of sub-section provides that any one property at option of assessee will be treated as self-occupied whereas in case of remaining properties the annual value shall be the sum determined under clause (a) of subsection (1) i.e. sum for which property might reasonably be let from year to year. 19.4 At the outset, we note that one of house property situated at 25, Aryavart- II on which lower authorities have estimated the rental income and added to the total income has been claimed as used for self-residential purpose by the assessee by filing additional ground of cross objection. Therefore, as per the provision of sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act, the same should be treated as self- occupied properties and annual value of the same will be nil. In this regard, we have perused the assessment order and note that the AO in his order has given details of 8 different properties apart from self-occupied properties in tabulated form which does not include the property situated at 25, Aryavart-II. From the first table it is discernible that the assessee has declared income from only few properties. Thus, the AO in the subsequent para estimated the rent on balance 20 house properties from which no income was offered. However, on perusal of the working table given by the AO, we find that the AO has also estimated rent on property at 25, Aryavart-II which was not in first table. Thus, what is transpired that the AO estimated rental income chargeable to tax on self-occupied property also which should have been at nil value. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him on account of deemed rent with regard to this property i.e. situated at 25, Aryavart-II. 19.5 Coming to the other house properties placed at S. Nos. 1-5 & 7 in the table reproduced in preceding para 15 of this order, we note that, there is no information and evidence available on record suggesting that the same were let out during the year or used for the purpose of business or profession. Thus, it is assumed that these properties were not let out and the same falls under the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. Further, all these properties also cannot be categorized as self-occupied. It is for the reason that the assessee has already claimed one property as self-occupied and therefore any of the property of the assessee either used by the family member of the assessee or vacant for any reason cannot be given the benefit of self-occupied. Hence, the provision of section 23(4)(b) will be attracted and deemed annual value shall be worked out being a sum for which property might have reasonably let out on year to year basis as reduced by taxes levied by the local authority on such properties. 19.6 Now the question before us arises what should be the reasonable sum at which the property might have let out year to year as prescribed under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. In this regard, we note the reasonable sum has been explained on the portal of the income tax which is as under: Computation of reasonable expected rent of a let out property . Reasonable expected rent will be higher of the following: ¬ 1. Municipal value of the property (*); or ¬ 2. Fair rent of the property (Note 1). If a property is covered under Rent Control Act, then the reasonable expected rent cannot exceed standard rent (Note 2). (*) Meaning of Municipal Value 21 For collection of municipal taxes, local authorities make periodic survey of all buildings in their jurisdiction. Such value determined by the municipal authorities in respect of a property, is called as municipal value of the property. Note 1: Meaning of Fair Rent It is the reasonable expected rent which the property can fetch. It can be determined on the basis of rent fetched by a similar property in the same or similar locality. Note 2: Meaning of Standard Rent It is the maximum rent which a person can legally recover from his tenant under the Rent Control Act. Standard rent is applicable only in case of properties covered under Rent Control Act. 19.7 We further note the provision of section 24 of the Act provides certain deduction from annual income before charging income under the head house property. The provisions of section 24 of the Act reads as under: Deductions from income from house property. 24. Income chargeable under the head "Income from house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value; 14 (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: 19.8 However, we find that the lower authorities have estimated the income by way of deemed rent from the house properties without determining annual value of the properties as prescribed under section 22 r.w.s. 23 of the Act and also not provided deduction as per section 24 of the Act. As such, the AO and the learned CIT(A) has adopted certain percentage of book value of the property as the rental income chargeable to tax under the head house property in their respective order. To our understanding, the basis adopted by the lower authorities was not as per the provisions of law and also not scientific one and same is also discriminatory. To illustrate and for better understanding, let’s assume a situation that in a particular area/locality a person “ Mr. A” holding building or flat of 50 sq. mtr which was acquired 10 years ago and other person “Mr. B” purchased flat or building of 50 sq. mtr. in same area just before 6 months. It is obvious that the book value of both the properties in the hands of both the persons being ‘Mr. A’ and ‘Mr. B’ will be different. If we work out the income under the head house property by adopting the basis as assumed by the lower authorities i.e. certain percentage of book value of property, then result will be different i.e. lower in the 22 hands of ‘ Mr. A’ and higher in hands of ‘ Mr. B’, hence the same is discriminatory. Thus, it is transpired that the entire basis of determining the deemed rental income by the revenue has been misplaced which is not as per the provisions of law. 19.9 However, we are also conscious to the fact neither parties being assessee or the revenue brought the details with regard to Municipal Rent value, fair rent and standard rent. Further, we are also conscious to the fact that this issue is also not in dispute before us. The limited issue before us is whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in reducing the rate of deemed rental income or not. In this regard, we note that the AO has estimated the rent on ad-hoc basis being 10% of book value of the house properties without bringing any comparable. On the other hand, the learned CIT(A) has referred data from various website dealing in house property let out activity and found that the rent of the properties is around 2 to 3% of the capital value of the property. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) reduced the rate of annual value as determined by the AO to the extent of 3% of book value. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the rate taken by the learned CIT(A) is better suited and does not requires any interference of us. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed whereas the ground of cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 20. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of change in the valuation of stock for Rs. 20,450/- only. 21. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee in original return and the auditor in form 3CD has shown the valuation of the closing stock-in-trade at Rs. 1,36,91,294/- only. However, at the time of filing return of income under section 153A of the Act, the closing stock-in-trade was shown at Rs. 1,37,11,744/- only. 23 21.1 On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that the auditor at the time of filing of original return made bona-fide mistake in the valuation of stock in trade. Therefore, the assessee revised the valuation as per cost or market value whichever is lower. 21.2 However, the AO disagreed and found that the assessee has not furnished documentary evidences in support of her claim. The auditor was a qualified person and reported that he valued stock in trade as per cost or market value whichever is lower. Further, for the sake of argument, if the auditor makes certain mistake in valuation, then the same should have been corrected by filing revised return and revised audit report. However, the assessee has chosen to revise valuation after the lapse of 7-8 years at the time of filing return of income under section 153A of the Act. The assessee also not filed any document from the side of auditor stating that he made any mistake in the valuation of shares held as stock in trade. Therefore, the AO rejected the re-valuation and disallowed reduction in GP due to such revolution by Rs. 20,450/- only. 22. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 22.1 It was submitted that the assesse in support of revised valuation of share held as stock in trade, has furnished print copy showing closing price of the shares at Bombay stock exchange as on 31 st March 2010. Hence, observation of the AO that no supporting evidence was furnished is devoid of merit. The print copy of closing price of share shows that there was bona-fide mistake occurred in valuation of shares held as stock in trade by the auditor. Therefore, the assessee revised/corrected the same as per method provided under accounting standard and under the provisions of the Act in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. It was contended that the provision of section 153A of the Act clearly mentioned that return filed under impugned section should be treated a return 24 required to be filed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act and all the other provision of the Act will be applicable while assessing or re-assessing the total income. It was also contended that the assessee cannot be debarred from raising or claiming legitimate claim at any time before the authority. The assessee in this regard relied on various judicial pronouncements. The assessee also contended that the revaluation of closing value of shares held as stock in trade are tax natural exercise for the reason that closing value of shares in the year under consideration will be opening value of the subsequent year. 22.2 The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: 13.2 After going through the issue in totality with reference to provisions of the Act, Accounting standards, several judgements of various higher judicial authorities, the stand taken by the AO is not found justified. One of the reason for dismissing the appellant's claim by the AO is that the appellant did not file any documentary evidence in support of revised valuation but in the remand report proceedings, the appellant filed print outs from the BSE site, to show the price of scrip on 31 sl March. The same has been acknowledged by the AO in the remand report and did not find any incorrectness of price taken by the appellant in revised valuation with reference to price as on 31 st March as reflected on BSE screen, therefore, this reason for making the addition is not found valid. The another reason that the appellant took the stand at the fag-end of the assessment proceedings is also not justified as in the remand report proceedings, the AO had ample time for any enquiries/verification, if required. The issue is decided in the coming paras. 13.3 The first issue is to decide is whether during the assessment proceedings u/s,153A of the Act, can the assessee file revised return. The return furnished u/s. 139(1) can be revised u/s. 139(5) of the Act but no such specific provision is there in the Act for the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. But the provisions of section 153A(1)(a) says that the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. This isclear from the provisions as contained in section 153A(a) that the return filed U/S.153A of the Act is a return filed u/s.139 and a!! provisions of the Act are applicable, which are applicable to return filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Thus, the appellant is right in putting claim by filing revised return before the AO during the assessment proceedings. In the case of CIT vis. B.C. Shirke Construction Tech (PI Ltd 79 Taxman.com 3Q6.(Bom). Hon'ble High jgourt of Bombay has held that return filed u/s.153A is a return furnished u/s. 139 and therefore, provisions of the Act, which apply in case of a return filed in regular course u/s.139(1), would also continue to apply in case of return filed u/s.153A. This position was re-affirmed by the CBDT, New Delhi vide Instruction No.286/1/2004-IT (lnv)-1 dated 19.1.2003 wherein it has been stated that all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment or reassessment made u/s.153A of the Act. This was reiterated by the CBDT vide Circular No.7/2003 dated 5.9.2003, that ail other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment or re-assessment made u/s.153A of the Act. This has been further confirmed by the Hon'bleJHigh Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the case of Kiritbhai Dahvabhai Patel - 80 Taxamn.com 162 In which it has been held that return filed in response to notice issued u/s.153A is considered return filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Moreover, the appellant has right to place claim before the CIT(A) first 25 time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corpon of India Ltd (1990)...S3 Taxman.85 (SC) held that the Act does not contain any express provision debarring an assessee from raising an additional ground in appeal and there is no provision in the Act placing restriction on the power of appellate authority in entertaining the additional ground in appeal. Thus, it is clear that the appellant has rightly raised the issue of revised valuation of closing stock before the AO and CIT(A). This discussion has taken care of the AOs objection that this revised valuation is after 7-8 years. Whatever the time, it is clear from the above findings that the assessee can raise additional ground before CIT(A), if appeal is pending. For determining of income chargeable to tax the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vis. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman.601 fSC) held that stock in trade must be valued for ascertainment of profits. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of PN. Mohd Meere Khan v/s. CIT (19691 73 1TR 735 fSC) that dosing stock must be valued for ascertainment of true trading results. This also implied that the valuationof stock should be correct. Method of valuation of stock is either cost price or market price, whichever is less. This method is in accordance with the Accounting Standar-2 & As-13, as approved by the ICAI. The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v/s. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) held that valuation of closing stock at cost or at market value whichever is less is generally accepted & established rule of commercial practice. These judicial pronouncements are in furtherance of the principle that real income is to be taxed and not fictional income. To arrive at real income figure, valuation of closing stock at cost or at market value, whichever is loss, is essential. The appellant followed this method of valuation regularly and it has been reported by the tax auditor in the audit report but while taking value of the closing stock, he took the cost price, which was an error on the part of tax auditor. This discussion show that appellant is correct in revising valuation of closing stock to ascertain correct income. 13.4 Further, it is a fact that the appellant has taken market value of closing stock on the basis of value shown on BSE site as on 31 sl March. The price on BSE site is open to all to see & verify. This was placed before the AO in the remand report proceedings and the AO did not report any factual incorrectness. If, at random,verified the prices of some of the scrips from the closing stock with the price shownon BSE screen on 31 sl March with reference to the value adopted by the appellant and found that it is taken correctly by the appellant while putting revised valuation.Therefore, it is held that there is no factual error in appellant's revised valuation of closing stock. 13.5 It is also important to mention that the issue involved is revenue neutral. Closing stock at the year end of one year become the opening stock for next financial year and thus, any change in valuation of closing stock of any year, will change the opening stock of next year by same amount and will effect the determination of income. If value of closing stock is decreased in one year to reduce the income it will increase opening stock & income of the next year by same amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Realest Builders & Services Ltd 307 ITR 202(SC) held that change in value of closing stock is revenue neutral. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Triveni Eng. !nd. Ltd 198 Taxman 194 held entire exercise of change in valuation of closing stock is revenue neutral. It is important to mention that the appellant revised valuation of closing stock at higher in few years and at lower in other years. 13.6 From the discussion in paras above, it is clearly proved that the appellant is right in putting revised valuation of closing stock before the AO and the CIT(A), revised valuation is in accordance with the provisions of section 145A of the Act, as per Accounting Standard-2 and AS-13 and factually correct as per BSE screen at the year end. Looking to the factual & legal discussion in para above, the appellant's case is found clearly covered by the above mentioned binding judgements, hence, this ground of appeal is allowed The 26 AO is directed to take the figures of closing stock as placed in revised return by the appellant and determine the income. 23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 23.1 Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 24. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The limited issue before us is whether the assessee in the return filed under section 153A can change the value of stock in trade than the value declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee claimed that the Auditor in audit report filed along with original return under section 139 of the Act made certain bona-fide mistake while valuing the closing stock in trade. Therefore, the assessee rectified the same while furnishing return under section 153A of the Act. The assessee in support also furnished print copy of closing price of shares held as stock in trade at the screen of Bombay stock exchange as on 31 st March 2010. The only objection of the AO is that there was no document, from the auditor, was furnished stating that the auditor made mistake and if the auditor makes a mistake then why the same was not rectified by filing the revised return and revised audit report in form 3CD. Before going into the specific issue we feel pertinent to refer the relevant provision of section 153A(1) of the Act which reads as under: 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years 96 [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; 27 (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made 96 [and for the relevant assessment year or years] : 24.1 From perusal of above provision, we note that once search action initiated against a person, the AO by issuing notice shall require the assessee to file return of income for each assessment year falling within six assessment year immediately preceding the assessment year in which search under section 132 of the Act took place and also for the assessment year in which search was initiated. Thereafter, the AO shall assess or reassess the total income of those six assessment years and for the relevant year. Thus, what is transpired that in case of search proceeding once return under section 153A of the Act filed by the assessee, then the AO shall assess or reassess the total income of the assessee on the basis of such return under section 153A of the Act only notwithstanding what has been declared in original return of income filed under section 139 of the Act. As such, the fresh return field under section 153A of the Act will be considered as return filed under section 139 of the Act. In this regard, we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Shri Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT reported in 80 taxmann.com 162 wherein it was held as under: “In view of specific provision of Section 153A of the I.T. Act, the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under Section 153A, if any.” 24.2 In the case on hand, the assessee filed return of income in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act in which the assessee change her stand with regard to value of closing stock as originally declared in original return of income filed under section 139 of the Act. The AO disregarded the new value of closing stock taken by the assessee and held that the value shown in original return of income can only be changed by filing revised return and revised audit report. In our considered opinion and in view of the discussion made in preceding 28 paragraph, the AO was required to assess or re-assess the total income of the assessee on the basis of disclosure made in return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. It is pertinent to highlight the assessee has not changed the method of valuation but only made correction of certain mistake in taking the value of closing price of the shares held as stock-in-trade. The assessee in support of such correction also furnished documentary evidence in the form of print copy of closing price of shares reflecting on the screen of BSE. The AO without pointing any infirmity in the working of the assessee and supporting documentary evidences held that value adopted in original return cannot be changed in return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. we also find that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Smt. Bhanuben Kantibhai Savilla vs. DCIT reported in 111 taxmann.com 150 deal with specific question whether the assessee can changed its stand in the return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Act. The Bench after analyzing and considering the argument, counter argument and judicial pronouncement decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant observation of the coordinate bench of this tribunal reads as under: 11. We shall now turn to the incidental point involving question of law arising in the subject matter of appeal i.e. whether the assessee is entitled to revise its position in departure with the original stand (taken in the return filed under section 139 of the Act prior to search) and claim the profits and gains arising from development and sale of land parcels as chargeable under section 28 of the Act under the head 'Profits & Gains' of business as against initial claim of its chargeability under section 45 of the Act under the head 'capital gains' or not. The question is no longer res integra. In so far as the taxability of an income under the appropriate head is concerned, the question is answered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT v. Pranjay Mercantile Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 193/223 Taxman 10/361 ITR 462 (Guj). In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it is trite that the income of the assessee is to be assessed under different heads enumerated in Section as per the true nature and character of income and not merely on the basis of classification given by the assessee. 12. We now turn to another aspect as to whether the assessee is entitled to revise its claim and alter its original position in accordance with law or not. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mitesh Impex [2014] 46 taxmann.com 30/225 Taxman 168 (Mag.) has inter alia observed that the income tax proceedings are not adversarial in nature and the object of the Revenue would be to tax real income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 noted that there is no reason why assessee should be prevented from raising a question of law before the Tribunal for the first time so long as relevant facts are on record in respect of the item concerned. From a reading of long line of judicial precedents, it is apparent that the authorities under the Act are under sacrosanct obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax could be collected as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, 29 misconception or not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from enumerable judgments including CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 129 Taxman 271/261 ITR 367 (SC), S.R. Koshti (supra) (Guj), Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra), B. G. Shirke Construction Technology (P) Ltd. (supra) and so on. Therefore, the assessee is within its legitimate right to alter a wrong position taken earlier in the course of proceedings. In the instant case, the assessee has altered its position in the return filed under section 153A of the Act filed in pursuance of search proceedings wherein the assessee has sought taxability of income generated from sale of land parcels under the head 'business income' which action is permissible provided such claims is justified when tested under the provisions of Act. 13. We thus find considerable merit in the plea of the assessee herein for eligibility of claim of the assessee for taxability of profits arising on sale of plots under the head 'business income' as claimed in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. 14. We however now turn to the yet another related aspect in controversy. It is the case of the Revenue that the provisions of Section 153A of the Act are for the benefit of the Revenue in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sun Engineering Works (supra). It is thus claimed on behalf of the Revenue that assessee is not permitted to make a fresh claim or alter its original stand to its advantage in the course of assessment proceedings pursuance to search. We do not see any force in such plea either. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sun Engineering (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 147 of the Act which seeks to assess the chargeable income escaped assessment. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such provision is enacted for the benefit of Revenue and not the assessee. In total contrast to Section 147/148, a special procedure has been provided under Chapter XIV for assessment in search cases. The assessments of search cases are required to be made as per Section 153A of the Act. Unlike Section 147, the scope of Section 153A of the Act is not necessarily relatable to only undisclosed income. The scheme of assessment under section 153A of the Act appears to be quite different qua Section 147 of the Act on the face of it. Section 153A of the Act begins with non-obstante clause which has an override effect over Section 147 of the Act among others. At this point, it will relevant to take note of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has inter alia observed that return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act is to be considered as return filed under section 139 of the Act. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shrikant Mohta v. CIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 224/257 Taxman 43 has answered the question posed before it in affirmative that where a return was filed in response to notice under section 153A(1)(a) of the Act is required to be treated as a return under section 139 of the Act and that any other return is of no consequence and non est. The co-ordinate bench in V. N. Devadoss (supra) has also expressed a similar view and held that the assessee was entitled to avail the benefit of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in return filed under section 153A of the Act, despite the fact that claim was not made earlier in a return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. A conspectus of the aforesaid decision cited would thus give a rise to a compelling impression that assessee is not prevented from making a claim to its advantage in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act unlike Section 147 of the Act. 24.3 We also find it pertinent to refer the order of coordinate bench of Nagpur Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Smt. Anju Saraf reported in 142 taxmann.com 50, where the assessee filed return of income under section 139 claiming certain 30 amount of deduction under section 80IB of the Act and the assessment was also completed under section 143(3).r.w.s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the search proceeding was initiated in the case of the assessee and the AO issued notice under section 153A requiring the assessee to furnish return of income. The assessee in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A increased the amount of his claim of deduction under section 80IB which was not allowed by the AO. The tribunal in the given fact decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 10. Regarding claiming of higher amount of deduction u/s 80-IB while filing the return in response to notice u/s 153A, it is important to note that the provisions of assessment in the case of search undersection153A have been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1st June, 2003. These provisions are successor of the special procedure for assessment of search cases under Chapter XIV-B starting with section 158B. Whereas Chapter XIV-B required the assessment of "undisclosed income" as a result of search, which has been defined in section 158B(b), section153A dealing with assessment in case of search w.e.f. 1st June, 2003 requires the AO to determine "total income" and not "undisclosed income". Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to compute the total income of the assessee on the basis of returnfiled u/s 153A of the act after considering the submissions made during the course of hearing before him, therefore there cannot be any scope for arguing that the assessee has been rendered powerless to even lodge a claim in respect of which deduction was not allowed earlier. Here it is important to note that the total income is not reduced simply on the basis of making a claim. The AO is fully empowered to consider the question of deductibility as per the provisions of the Act. If after going through such claim, he feels that addition is called for, he will obviously eligible to make such addition and vice versa, which the assessing officer has done in the case under reference. 11. Some judicial findings wherein, held that the assessee is entitled to raise a claim of expenses, deduction and carry forward of losses etc. in the return of Income filed u/s 153A of the Act:— Pr. CIT v. JSW Steel Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 165/270 Taxman 201/422 ITR 71 (Bom.) Asstt. CIT v. Splendor Landbase Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2461 (Delhi) of 2016, dated 6-6-2018] CIT v. B G Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 306/246 Taxman 300/395 ITR 371 (Bom.). Asstt. CIT v. V N Devadoss [2013] 32 taxmann.com 133/57 SOT 67 (Chennai - Trib.) (URO). Naresh T Wadhwani v. Dy. CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 360/68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib.) (URO). ITO v. Gajraj Constructions [2015] 62 taxmann.com 18/70 SOT 634 (Pune - Trib.) (URO) . Malpani Estates v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 242/64 SOT 105 (Pune - Trib.) (URO) . Dy. CIT v. Eversmile Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mum. Trib.) . 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account of calculation mistake as observed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order at para 7.3 (AY 2006-07) mentioning that The claim was enhanced to Rs. 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetical error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business." However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has 31 pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deductionunder sec 80-IB. Admittedly, it is an undisputed fact that the enhancement of the deductionclaimed in return u/s 139(1) which was increased while filingreturn in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 24.4 Thus, in view of the above and considering the facts that the assessee has not changed the method of valuation of closing stock in trade but only corrected certain bona fide mistakes which is supported by the documentary evidences. Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to change his/her stand from the original return. The AO is required to assess or reassess total income on basis of return filed under section 153A of the Act based on tangible materials. 24.5 Before parting, it also important to note that change in the value of closing stock is a tax natural exercise for the reason that if assessee in the year under consideration valued stock at lesser/ higher amount, then the assessee in subsequent year will also claim the benefit of opening stock at lesser/ higher amount. Thus, there is no loss to revenue on account of valuation of stock. 24.6 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 25. In the result,the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO. NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 26. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT has given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 32 27. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence, the same is dismissed accordingly. 28. The issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection No. 1 is that learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the notional rental income on self- occupied property. 29. At the outset, we note that the issue has been decided along with the issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 243/Ahd/2018 vide paragraph No. 19.4 of this order in favour of assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence, the ground of additional objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 30. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that AO ought to have made assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 31. The learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that there was no incriminating material found from premises of the assessee during the search. The material which was relied and referred by the AO for making addition in the hand of the assessee was found from the premises of third party. The learned AR accordingly contended that any material found from third party should either belong to or pertain to the assessee and then, in such a scenario, AO was required to issue notice under section 153C of the Act to make assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and r.w.s. 153C of the Act. However, no notice under section 153C was issued and the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 33 153A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order is void-ab-initio which needs to be quashed. 32. On the other hand, the learned DR contended that the AO while framing the assessment has not made any reference to any document recovered from the 3 rd party premises and therefore there was no reason to frame the assessment under section 153C of the Act. The learner DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 33. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The law is fairly settled that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act can be initiated in a situation where the documents/materials belonging/ pertaining to the assessee was recovered from the premises of the 3 rd party in the course of search proceedings under section 132 of the Act. Then, the AO of the search party has to record the satisfaction by observing that the documents found in the course of search from the premises of the 3 rd party belongs/ pertains to the person other than searched person and he will hand over such satisfaction along with the necessary documents to the AO of such other person who was not subject to search. The AO of the other person has again will record his satisfaction that the documents found from the premises of the 3 rd party in the course of search has bearing on the income of the assessee. The question arises what would be the fate of the case where there was search in the case of the assessee as well as in the case of the other party under the provisions of section 132 of the Act and the document was found from the premises of the 3 rd party belonging/ pertaining to the assessee. This issue has been answered by the order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajesh Sundardas Vaswani & others in IT(SS)A No. 95/Ahd/2019 & others where the coordinate bench vide order dated 12-11-2020 quashed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by observing as under: 34 29. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before adverting to the facts and alleged seized material considered by the ld.AO for making the addition in the hands of the present three assessees, we deem it appropriate to bear in mind the position of law propounded in various authoritative judgments recording scope of section 153A of the Act. We are of the view that in this regard, there were large numbers of decisions. First we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del). Hon’ble Delhi High Court after detailed analysis has summarized the following legal position: 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 30. ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of DIT Vs. Smt. Shivali Mahajan and others, rendered in ITA No.5585/Del/2015 (copy of the decision placed on record) has considered this aspect in its decision. Thereafter, the Tribunal has specifically held that serial no.(iv) of the above proposition, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has specifically held that assessment under section 153A of the Act has to be specifically made on the basis of seized material. ITAT Delhi Bench was considering an aspect whether the evidence in the shape of books of accounts, money, bullion, jewellery found 35 during the course of search relates to other person than the searched person, can that be considered while making assessment under section 153A of the Act. Like in the present appeals, simultaneous search was carried out at the premises of the Venus Infrastructure and Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani, and the material found during the search of Venus Infrastructure Developers or Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani could be used while framing the assessment of Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani and Deepak Budharmal Vaswani under section 153A of the Act. ITAT Delhi Bench has specifically held that material recovered from the premises of other person cannot be used in the hands of the searched person. For that purpose an assessment under section 153C or 147 is to be made. At this stage, in order to fortify ourselves, we would like to make reference to the following paragraphs of the ITAT Delhi Bench’s order. It reads as under: “15. Thus, when during the course of search of an assessee any books, document or money, bullion, jewellery etc. is found which relates to a person other than the person searched, then the Assessing Officer of the person searched shall hand over such books of account, documents, or valuables to the Assessing Officer of such other person and thereafter, the Assessing Officer of such other person can proceed against such other person. However, in the case under appeal before us, admittedly, Section 153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized and not the material found in the search of any other person.” 31. Order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in other cases viz. Asha Rani Lakhotia vs. ACIT and Subhag Khattar Vs. ACIT are on the same line. 32. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subhag Khattar in Tax Appeal No.60 of 2017 has considered the following question of law: "Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in holding that the additions made under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " 33. After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: “6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed it by an order dated 27th November, 2014. A further appeal was filed by the Assessee before the ITAT. The ITAT, inter alia, found substance in the contention of the Assessee that the assessment under Section 153(A) of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search on the premises of the Assessee was not sustainable in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380 ITR 573. 7. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the Revenue whether in the present case anything incriminating has been found when the premises of the Assessee was searched. The answer was in the negative. The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the AEZ Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act was misconceived since the so-called incriminating material was not found during the search of the Assessee's premises. The Revenue could have proceeded against the Assessee on the basis of the 36 documents discovered under any other provision of law, but certainly, not under Section 153A. This goes to the root of the matter.” 34. Hon’ble Court has specifically observed for the purpose of section 153A that only seized material is required. However, if there is any other incriminating material belong to the assessee found at the premises of the some other person, then the assessment has to be made under other provisions and not under section 153A of the Act. Hon’ble jurisdictional high Court has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Hon’ble Gujarat High Court framed the following question of law in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction (supra): "[A] Whether the order of Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made in assessment made u/s 153A of the Act? [B] Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition should be based on the incriminating material found during the course of search under new procedure of assessment u/s 153A which is different from earlier procedure u/s 158BC r.w.s. 158BB of the Act and by reading into the section, the words 'the incriminating material found during the course of search' which are not there in section 153A? [C] Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on the ITAT order in Sanjay Aggarwal v. DCIT (2014) 47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation 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 that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes 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 income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding 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 basis 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 (India) (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the 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. 37 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 notice, 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 in respect thereof came to be issued on 19.12.2011 seeking an explanation from the assessee. 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 making 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 Officer to permit him to cross-examine the said persons. The Assessing Officer issued summons 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 appellant 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 to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.11,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 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 case, 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 Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment 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 (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the 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 preceding years; however, there must 38 be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 36. As far as decisions relied upon by the ld.CIT-DR are concerned, we have already considered the decision in the case of E.N. Gopakumar (supra). Other decisions are also on the similar line, but they are not in coherence with the position of law propounded by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, Tribunal being subordinate to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, is required to first follow Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. If no ratio of the law is available from Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble jurisdictional high Court, then the decision of non-jurisdictional High Court is to be followed. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to recapitulate the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court and make discussion on them. Ld.CIT-DR was unable to bring any authoritative decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court or from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court to support the case of the Revenue. He made reference to para-18 of the Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction (supra), which we have considered; but paragraph nowhere buttress the case of the ld.CIT-DR. On a detailed analysis of these case laws, it is pertinent to observe that scheme of the Income Tax Act would provide that a regular assessment of the income is to be made under section 143(3)/144. In the case of an escaped income, then a notice under section 148 should be issued and the assessment is to be made under section 147 r.w. section 143(3). In case a search is carried out on an assessee, then that search could give rise to a proceedings viz. under section 153A qua the person who has been searched. The income has to be assessed on the basis of material found during the course of search. The second category of the person is third-party and the assessment could be made under section 153C of the Act. The assessment under section 153C is to be made on a condition that during the course of search any money, bullion, jewellery, assets, documents belonged to the assessee prior to 1.6.2015, and information relates/pertains to assessee after 1.6.2015 was found qua to the person other than the searched person. In that situation, the AO of the searched person would record his satisfaction that such material belongs to third-person, and he would transmit that material along with his satisfaction to the AO having jurisdiction on such other person. The AO thereafter issue notice under section 153Cafter recording his satisfaction and the assessment proceedings under section 153C r.w. section 153A would commence. One more situation would arise, which we are going to discuss in this very group in the later part of the order that material was found during the course of search, but six years have expired, then the assessment could be reopened. In other words, the material belonged to some other person was found during the course of search. Prior to 1.6.2015, a possible angle could be that such material is to be construed, whether the income has escaped assessment or not. Broadly, these are basic parameters for making assessment under different sections. In the present group of three assessees in different assessment years, search was conducted, but the additions have been made on the basis of the material found during the search relating to some third person. In other words, the AO has not made the addition on the basis of material found during the course of search of these three assessees. We will discuss the material considered by the AO in the subsequent part of his order. Primarily, after looking the material considered by the AO and compiled in tabular form by the ld.counsel for the assessee, we have verified that these additions are not based on the material found during the course of search conducted at the premises of these three assessees. Let us take note of the material considered by the AO for making the addition. These details have been compiled in tabular form and they read as under: RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI Total Basis of additi Particulars 2009-2010-201201201201201( 09-10 to 39 10 11 1- 12 2-13 3-14 4-15 5-16 on 15-16 ) Investment in land property: Land at Ambali FP - 22 7250000 000000072500000 Note - 1 Land at Santej, Survey No.618 02500000 65000 0000009000000 Note - 1 Land at Santej, Survey No.654 07000000 67579 00000013757900 Note - 1 Land at Ambai - FP/22 0 2812000 00000028120000 Note - 1 Land at Ognaj, Survey No.1441/11 00 11000 000 210400 001365000032176500 Note - 1 Land at Ognaj, Survey No.1441/12 00 55000 00 244422 50137000029955950 Note - 1 Land at Santej, Survey No.669 00 32000 000 100000 000033000000 Note - 1 Land at Santej, Survey No.711 00 20600 000 332000 000075000054550000 Note - 1 Land at Shilaj, Survey No.804 00 13720 00025000 260000 00 580000 02150045566500 Note - 1 Land at Thaltej, Survey No.518, 519, FP 84 00 30000 000 116500 000 720500 00 100000 000228550000 Note - 1 Land at Ranakpur, Survey No.144 000 610000 0 700000 00013100000 Note - 1 Land at Vejalpur, Survey No.688 000 381500 0 360000 0 587500 0 205792 5033869250 Note - 1 Land at Santej, Survey No.712 0000 301480 0 251800 005532800 Note - 1 Land at Ognaj, Survey No.1300/2 0000 239300 000023930000 Note - 1 Land at Ognaj, Survey No.1441/10 00000 226000 000 Note - 1 Other land transactions 1666670 41290 00196331250620004322750 Note - 1 Expenses related to projects: Venus Amadeus & Venus IVY 00 20782 00 180000 00003878200 Note - 1 Atlantis & Benicia 0778250 66897 5000007468000 Note - 1 40 Total Basis of addition Particulars 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 ( 09-10 to 15-16 ) Investment in shops at 3rd Eye building, 1492000 16080 0 41814 567608 155308 354 2273164 Note - 1 Panchwati Road, Ahmedabad Investment / Expense at Bungalow 14492605 9630436 1055493 524910 4544693 9897843 12597300 52743280 Note - 1 Transactions of personal nature 7211300 21017100 7120165 9029055 9717070 15100220 11199280 80394190 Note - 1 Misc. transactions 0 0 4507500 2300000 0 0 15933650 22741150 Note - 1 SMFPL & SSAHPL 0 0 0 219250000 59725567 3091050 952383 283019000 Note - 2 Payment to Prakash Tekwani 0 0 3666667 8400000 3333333 0 0 15400000 Note - 1 LTCG from sale of shares of Prraneta Industries 0 0 174102529 69266623 0 0 0 243369152 Note - 3 Ltd. Total 95862572 69061866 329427204 516754285 213634521 75043621 62033717 1361817786 Note - 1: Additions based on "cash book" seized fro m "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in case of "ASV" & "VIDPL" ( not "RSV" ); Note - 2: Addition based on - - "information" gathered during various search / surv ey carried out by Kolkatta Investigation Wing in ca ses of completely unconnected third parties ; (not "RSV") ; - "Material" seized from "901, Sapphire complex" whic h was searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (no t "RSV") ; & - "cash book" seized from "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "RSV") ; Note - 3: Addition based on - - "information" gathered from "search" and "survey" i n the case of "SCS" & "PIL" i.e. completely unconne cted third parties (not "RSV") ; & 41 - "cash book" seized from "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "RSV") ; ASV - Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani VIDPL - Venus Infrastructure & Development Pvt. Ltd . RSV - Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani SCS -Shirish Chandrakant Shah PIL - Prrante Industries Ltd. 42 SANJEET MOTORS FINANCE PVT. LTD. Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 Total Basis of addition Share capital 493300000 500000 493800000 Note - 1 Total 493300000 500000 493800000 Note - 1: Addition based on - - "information" gathered during various search / surv ey carried out by Kolkatta Investigation Wing in ca ses of completely unconnected third parties (not "SMFPL" ); - "Annexure A-1" seized from "901, Sapphire complex" searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "SMF PL") ; & - "cash book" seized from "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annnexure A-1 to 142) searched in the case o f "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "SMFPL") ; ASV - Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani VIDPL - Venus Infrastructure & Development Pvt. Ltd . SMFPL - Sanjeet Motors Finance Pvt. Ltd. 43 DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI Total Note / Particulars 2009-10 2010- 11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 ( 09-10 to Pgs. of DR's P/B 15-16 ) Investment in land property: Land at Bodakdev, Survey No.166/1 0 0 0 0 0 11500000 43136000 54636000 Pgs.3 64- 365 Land at Shilaj, Survey No.56 0 0 7500000 4065000 1025000 0 0 12590000 Pgs.3 66- 367 Land at Vejalpur, Survey No.688 0 0 0 3815000 3600000 5875000 20579250 33869250 Pgs.3 68- 370 Expenses for Saurabhi 0 0 0 0 0 346544 161300 507844 Pgs.3 71- 373 Transactions with Thakore family 0 2000000 8500000 18515000 46750000 13800000 9800000 99365000 Pgs.3 74- 376 Investment in land at Nidhrad and Chekla 51000000 20250000 113426000 389277000 352579600 165404970 83490500 11754280 70 Pgs.3 77- 393 Other land transactions / Expenses related to 464551755 19520590 0 674366872 505642204 359395385 257513000 163484290 26201594 06 Pgs.3 94- 428 land 44 Expenses related to projects: Venus Amadeus & Venus IVY 37839771 32400000 6829800 3957300 3961000 9337450 37348810 13167413 1 Pgs.4 29- 441 Atlantis & Benicia 1941000 38887150 81105770 12148850 29653502 6805000 5308500 17584977 2 Pgs.4 42- 455 Venus Pahel 0 0 31465900 6408700 8800000 45300000 903300 92877900 Pgs.4 56- 457 C. G. Square Mall (K - mall) 734800 430000 28446500 200000 150000 2186050 4310000 36457350 Pgs.4 58- 459 Venus Parklands and Venus Park Heights 2557500 27923000 16950140 16761192 28639600 14460500 500000 10779193 2 Pgs.4 60- 464 Shyam Residency 4700500 274750 15345575 25863100 49818975 73783250 72775600 24256175 0 Pgs.4 65- 474 VS 1993000 1287900 704000 7642000 9023500 2491300 6250700 29392400 Pgs.4 75- 479 Venus Township 0 48790 310330 36600 0 205000 250000 850720 Pgs.4 80- 481 45 Total Basis of addition Particulars 2009-10 2010-11 2011- 12 2012-13 2013-14 2014- 15 2015-16 ( 09-10 to 15-16 ) Investment in shops at 3rd Eye building, 7460000 80400 0 209068 2838042 776542 1772 11365824 Pgs.482-485 Panchwati Road, Ahmedabad Investment / Expense at Bungalow 14492605 9630436 1055493 524910 4544693 9897843 12597300 52743280 Pgs.486-496 B-45, Sarvoday Nagar expenses 0 365000 0 0 0 0 0 365000 Pgs.497-498 Law Garden / New garden 100000 0 0 0 5000000 0 0 5100000 Pgs.499-500 Transactions of personal nature 2826267 3950341 11531808 16462770 8547925 14988970 8367080 66675161 Pgs.501-517 Misc. transactions 79414430 51002062 87796668 63425622 108511740 19364400 83749140 49326406 2 Pgs.518-560 Payment to Prakash Tekwani 0 0 3666667 8400000 3333333 0 0 15400000 Note 2 LTCG from sale of shares of Prraneta 0 0 19594192 1 53239970 0 0 0 24918189 1 Note 3 Industries Ltd. SMFPL & SSAHPL 0 0 0 219250000 59725567 3091050 952383 28301900 0 Note 4 46 Jewellery 0 0 0 0 0 0 4448456 4448456 Note 5 Total 66961162 8 38373572 9 1284943 444 13558442 86 10858978 62 6571268 69 558414381 5995574 199 47 Note - 1: Pages mentioned in the last column are of DR's paperbook running into 4203 pages; All these additions are based on "cash book" seized from "terrace of Cr ystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched i n case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "DBV") Note - 2: Additions based on "cash book" seized fro m "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in case of "ASV" & "VIDPL" ( not "DBV" ); Note - 3: Addition based on - - "information" gathered from "search" and "survey" i n the case of "SCS" & "PIL" i.e. completely unconne cted third parties (not "DBV") ; & - "cash book" seized from "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "DBV") ; Note - 4: Addition based on - - "information" gathered during various search / su rvey carried out by Kolkatta Investigation Wing in cases of completely unconnected third parties (not "DBV") ; - "Material" seized from "901, Sapphire complex" whic h was searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (no t "DBV") ; & - "cash book" seized from "terrace of Crystal Arcade" (i.e. Annexure A-1 to 142) searched in the case of "ASV" and "VIDPL" (not "DBV") ; Note - 5: Addition based on "jewellery" found in th e case of "DBV"; ASV - Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani VIDPL - Venus Infrastructure & Development Pvt. Ltd . RSV - Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani SCS -Shirish Chandrakant Shah 48 PIL - Prrante Industries Ltd. 49 37. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully, and material available on record. For the sake of reference, let us take the assessment of Shri Deepak Budharmal Vaswani for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.9.2009 declaring total income at Rs.2,57,82,210/-. His income has been determined under section 153A r.w. section 143(3) at R.69,53,93,838/-. One of the additions made is of Rs.5.10 crores which is discernible in the chart also. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee, this addition has been made on the basis of pages 374 to 376 of the Department’s paper book. The addition has been discussed in para-30 of the assessment order. A perusal of the paragraph-30.2 of the assessment order for the Asstt.Year 2009-10 in the case of Deepak Budharmal Vaswani would reveal that this addition has been made on the basis of the details of cash payments recorded in unaccounted cash book seized from “Terrace of Crystal Arcade”. The following observation of the AO would make it clear: “On the basis of the above incriminating material seized evidences, it is noticed that details of cash payment have been found recorded in unaccounted cash book seized from Terrace of Crystal Arcade, C.G.Road, Ahmedabad and upon correlation of seized documents, it has been established that the land at Nidhrad, Chekhla villages have been purchased by Vaswani family members/Venus group concerns/Thakor family members. The land was purchased in the name of Thakor family members but the funds were made available by Vaswani family members and Venus group concerns. The on-money has been paid over and above the registered value of the land.” 38. Thus, the AO is talking of on-money which has been unearthed, according to him, during the course of search, on the basis of alleged cash book. This cash book was not found from the premises of the assessee. It was found from the premises of Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani and Venus Infrastructure and Developers. Similarly, the ld.counsel for the assessee took us through various conclusions of the AO in other assessment orders, and the basis of the documents considered by the AO. None of the additions, except addition of jewellery in the assessment year 2015-16 in the case of Deepak Budharmal Vaswani was made on the basis of seized material. As far as the case of Sanjeet Motors and Finance Ltd. is concerned, these additions are based on the basis of certain information gathered during the various investigation carried out by Kolkatta Investigation Wing in the case of completely an unconnected third-person. So these materials could not be considered in the assessment proceedings under section 153A. They ought to be considered under some other provisions viz. Section 153C or some other sections; but not under this section. 33.1 Based on the above, we hold that the Revenue has to follow the procedures laid down under the provisions of section 153C of the Act in a situation where the documents were found from the premises of the 3 rd party irrespective of the fact that the other party was also subject to the same search. In other words, the process as provided under section 153C of the Act has to be followed by the revenue for the purpose of making the addition based on the documents found in the course of search from the premises of the 3 rd party. 33.2 Coming to the facts of the case on hand, we note that the AO while making the addition in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act held that the loan amount received from Shri Jignesh Hiralal Shah and M/s Labdhi Finnce was sourced from M/s Rajesh Enterprises Ltd (REL) which was held to engaged in the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 50 activity of accommodation entries in the course of search carried out under section 132 of the Act. M/s Rajesh enterprises was held to be engaged in the activity of accommodation entries based on the documents found during the course of search. However, we note that there was no allegation of the AO that there was found any document belonging/pertaining to the assessee from the premises of M/s REL which is prerequisite for initiating the proceedings under section 153C of the Act. As such, M/s REL was held as indulged in providing accommodation entry based on the documentary evidence as recorded by the AO during the assessment proceedings but the addition in the case on hand was not based on the documents found from the premises of 3 rd party i.e. M/s REL. As such, the facts of the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case cited above i.e. Shri Rajesh Sundardas Vaswani (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the case on hand and therefore the principles laid down by the ITAT in that order cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, we hold that there was no necessity for issuing the notice under section 153C of the Act and subsequently to frame the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s 153C of the Act. For the sake of repetition, we are inclined to make it clear that had there been recovered certain documents from the premises of the 3 rd party belonging/pertain to the present assessee then the procedure as specified under section 153C of the Act was mandatory to be followed. Hence, the ground of objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 34. In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Giraben A Shah for A.Y. 2011-12. 35. The first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit and interest thereon. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 51 36. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 37. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,22,577/- made on account of deemed rental income. 38. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 39. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of valuation of stock for Rs. 28,53,462/- only. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 52 40. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 196/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 244/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 42. The assessee vide letter dated 25-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph No. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 43. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT has given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 44. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence, the same is dismissed accordingly. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 53 45. The assessee vide additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The cross objection of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the ground of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 47. In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 245/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Giraben A Shah for A.Y. 2012-13. 48. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of loan for Rs. 8,91,00,000/- only. 49. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 54 Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 50. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the deemed rental income of Rs. 5,22,577/- only. 51. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 52. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 69,90,000/- made on account of unexplained investment. 53. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee under the head fixed asset has shown investment in the property in the project of M/s Shree Pushkar Construction CO at Rs. 27,05,000/- which was paid through banking channel. The AO also found that during the search at the residence of Shri Ashit Harsihbhai Vohra (group person) document marked as annexure A-8 containing 37 pages were found and seized. On confrontation, Shri Ashit Harsihbhai Vohra stated that the impugned documents belong to Shri Atul Hirala IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 55 Shah. Accordingly, the statement of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah was recorded under section 131 of the Act wherein he stated that transaction recorded on pages of impugned annexure are in connection with financing of residential project being “Pushkar-3” and “Pushkar-4” of M/s Shree Pushkar Construction Co. (a firm). In lieu of finance, 18 flats each in “Pushkar-3” and “Pushkar-4” were allotted to the group as security. The amount was financed from M/s Rajesh Enterprise Limited (REL). Subsequently, the amount was received back along with interest and the same is recorded in the books of M/s REL. Shri Atul Hiralal Shah also agreed to submit ledger and counter ledger account along with other supporting evidences within 7 days. However, he only furnished ledger copy from the books of M/s Shree Pushkar Construction Co. 53.1 However, the AO on perusal of seized annexure A-8 found that flat wise entries were recorded containing both cash & cheque transactions. Likewise, on the top of page 14 and 15 of the annexure A-8 Flat No. B-004 and C-104 has been mentioned. Page 14 was containing both cash and cheque transaction whereas page 15 was containing cash transaction aggregating to Rs. 69.9 Lakh against the name of Shri Sanket Vohra. The AO from the information received from the land Revenue department found that the flat B-004 and C-104 were registered in the name of M/s REL and Smt. Giraben Atul Shah i.e. respondent assessee. The cheque payment recorded on page 14 was duly matched with the documented price of flat B-004. Therefore, the AO was of the view that cash transaction recorded on 15 with respect to flat C-104 registered in the name of the assessee represents unaccounted cash payment against purchases of such flat. The AO also noted that though the cash transaction recorded on impugned sheet is against the name of Shri Sanket Vohra who is a person connected to the barter group (Shri Atul Hiralal Shah) and handling transaction on his behalf. Shri Sanket Vohra is also relative of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah and director in several concerns of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah. Therefore, the fact that the cash transaction noted against the name of Shri Sanket Vora will not affect the liability of the present assessee that she has IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 56 made unaccounted investment. Thus, the AO made addition of Rs. 69.9 lakh to the total income of the assessee on account unaccounted/unexplained investment. 54. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 54.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the impugned seized material being annexure A-8 was found from the premises of Shri Ashit Vohra who is not the party in transaction of purchase of flat. Shri Ashit Vohra stated that the document belongs to Shri Atul Hiralal Shah and he has not purchased any flat in the project of Shree Pushkar Construction Co. Further, the cross examination of Shri Ashit Vohra was not provided. Therefore, no credence can be given to such material. The assesse further submitted that on money of 69.9 lakh as alleged by the AO is of 3 timeshigher of documented price of Rs. 27,05,000/- which is not possible. 54.2 The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality held that the AO erred in decoding the amount noted on seized material. As such the amount of unaccounted investment stands at Rs. 6.99 lakh and not 69.9 lakh as alleged by the AO. Thus, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition in part by observing as under: The appellant contended that the said page was not found from the premises of the appellant andcross examination was not provided, therefore, additions may be deleted. But this contention is not found acceptable for the reason that documents related to the group persons were found at various places and with several persons. Further, the statement of Shri Atul H. Shah, husband of the appellant was relied upon as mentioned in the assessment order. Therefore, her contention of cross examination in this matter is not accepted, as Shri Atulbhai H. Shah, her husband has been found to manage all financial affairs on her behalf. Regarding the contention that figures mentioned on this page have misunderstood by the AO to some extent is logical.Figures on this page are written like 990=00, 500=00, 2500=00 which comes total as 6999=00. If these figures are decoded, these can be Rs.6,99,000 and not Rs.69.90 lakh, as understood by the AO. Further, the registered value of the flat is Rs. 23 lakh. It is fact that for a flat of Rs.23 lakh, cash payment to the extent of Rs.69.90 lakh i.e three times of the payment is not possible. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider unexplained investment to the extent of Rs.6,99,000/- and hence, additions of Rs.6,99,000/- are confirmed on this issue. Remaining additions are deleted. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 57 55. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) both the Revenue and the assessee are before us. The Revenue is in appeal against the reduction of addition whereas the assessee is in cross objection against addition sustained for Rs. 6.99 lakh. The relevant ground of assessee’s cross objection in CO No. 163/Ahd/2019 reads as under: The Ld.CIT(A) has gravely erred in confirming the addition under section 69 as Unexplained Investment in Puskar Construction to the extent of Rs.6,99,000 on the presumption and without any corroborative evidence that cash payment has actually been made. The same is prayed for deletion. 55. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 56. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The 1 st controversy arises for the adjudication whether the assessee has made unaccounted investment in the purchase of Flat No. C-104 as discussed in the order of the AO. The entire thrust of the Revenue for the unaccounted investment in the land was based on the document seized from Shri Ashit Vohra marked as annexure A-8 specially the page No. 15 of impugned annexure where the impugned flat no. i.e. C-104 is mention and below that element of cash was recorded. The assessee has denied to have entered into any unrecorded transaction in connection with the purchase of impugned property. 56.1 We are also conscious to the well-settled position of law that a loose paper/ document/diary etc. do not carry evidentiary, unless or until such document is a speaking one in itself or becomes a speaking once if read in conjunction to some other corroborative evidence found during the course of search or post search investigation. In this regard, we referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 wherein it was held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. However, in case of IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 58 present assessee, we note that impugned page 14 and 15 found during the search contains the details of the transaction along with the bank entries which were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, we can safely assume that such document/page found during the search is not a dumb document and certainly carry evidentiary value. We are also of the considered opinion that once part of the seized document found to be true then it is transpired that other transactions recorded in such seized document is also true. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of coordinate bench ITAT Pune in case of Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 102 ITD 375 where it was held as under: On a perusal of the seized material, it was to be seen that the assessee was found in possession of meticulous record regarding monies received in respect of various godowns and shops to be constructed by it. The details, inter alia, contained the narration about the premises number, name of the customer, total sale cost, money received by way of cash, money received by way of cheque and the balance amount to be received. All the figures were written by omitting three zeros. The assessee fairly admitted that names mentioned in the list were of its customers. He also admitted that the amounts received by way of cheque would tally with the books of account if three zeros were supplied to the amount mentioned in the seized papers. His arguments against placing reliance on that paper, inter alia, that (i) the paper did not bear the name of the assessee, (ii) no evidence had been found regarding actual receipt of cash, and (iii) the paper did not contain the dates on which respective cash amounts were allegedly received, could not be agreed with for the reason that the authenticity of the names and decoding of amounts received by way of cheques would lead to establishment of the fact that the document belonged to the assessee and various amounts entered therein were correct if three zeros were supplied. The absence of the name of the assessee, thus, got fully corroborated on the basis of said interpretation of the document. The document spoke of receipt in cash and by way of cheques. The receipts by way of cheques tallied with the books of account. Therefore, it was a natural consequence that the receipt by way of cash had also been made. The date of receipt of cash was not material for deciding the assessment year in which the profits embedded in such receipts were to be taxed. The assessee was following project-completion method and, therefore, all amounts, i.e., amounts, received in cash as well as amounts received by way of cheques, were taxable in the year in which project was completed or substantially completed. Therefore, the assessee’s arguments as regards all three grounds had to fail. Accordingly, the document was not a dumb document but it was a speaking document and it pertained to the business transactions of the assessee. [Para 6.1] 56.2 In view of the above, we hold that there was the unaccounted investment made by the assessee in the property as discussed above. The next controversy IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 59 arises to quantify the amount of undisclosed investment whether it is of Y69.90 lakhs or 6.99 lakhs only. In this regard, we note that the learned CIT-A has recorded the amount reflected on the seized document as suppressed by 2 zeros and therefore he has worked out the amount of undisclosed investment at Y6.99 lakhs only. At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not pointed out any defect in the order of the learned CIT-A. Furthermore, on perusal of the seized document, we note that the amount mentioned therein has been suppressed by 2 zeros and therefore the correct amount of undisclosed investments stands at Y6.99 lakhs only. Accordingly, we hold that the amount of undisclosed investment in the property stands at Y6.99 lakhs only. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed. 57. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 58. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 59. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 60 Coming to CO NO. 163/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 245/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee’ 60. The assessee vide letter dated 28-02-2020 and 21-07-2020 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset, we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph No. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 61. The issue raised by the assessee vide cross objection is that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6.99 lakh on account of unaccounted investment. 62. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been decided along with the issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 245/Ahd/2018 vide paragraph no. 56 of this order where we have confirmed the finding of the learned CIT(A). For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence, the ground of cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 63. The assessee vide additional cross objection dated 28-02-2020 challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 64. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 61 65. The assessee vide additional ground of objection dated 21-07-2020 challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 66. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. However, for the sake of repetition and better understanding of the facts, in the present case the addition on account unexplained investment was made based on the document found from the premises of the Shri Ashit Vohra, a third party who was also subject to search. But the procedure has not been adopted by the Revenue with respect to the documents found from the premises of the 3 rd party in the manner as provided under section 153C of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that there cannot be any addition based on the document found from the premises of the third-party without following the procedure under section 153C of the Act. From the preceding discussion we find that there is only one addition i.e. addition on account of unexplained investment which was made by the AO based on the document found from the 3 rd party premises. To that extent, addition is not sustainable for the reason that the due process under section 153C of the Act has not been followed. However, the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act cannot be held invalid for the reason that the assessee was also subject to search under the provisions of section 132 of the Act and it was mandatory to frame the assessment. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed to the extent of addition made on basis of document found from the premises of Shri Ashit Vohra. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 62 67. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 246/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Giraben A Shah for A.Y. 2013-14. 68. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 4,46,63,000/- and interest thereon. 69. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 70. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the deemed rental income of Rs. 5,22,577/- under the head house property. 71. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 except for one of the property at 203 Abhshilp Complex which is dealt separately by us with assessee’s cross objection. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 63 be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14 except property mentioned above. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 72. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of change in valuation of closing stock. 73. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 74. In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to the CO No. 197/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 246/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 75. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 64 us vide paragraph no 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 76. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 77. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 78. The issue raised by the assessee vide first Additional ground of objection is that lower authorities erred in not allowing the deduction of “delayed payment charges for Rs. 69,48,668/- 79. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the assessee has incurred certain interest expenses in the course of the business which were classified under the head as delayed payment charges. The assessee under the wrong believe has treated such expense as penalty and therefore added back to the total income in the computation of income. To this effect, the learned AR has filed before us the computation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration which is placed on record. However, at the time of hearing of appeal, it was realized by the assessee that such interest expense is allowable deduction. Accordingly,the ld. AR prayed to admit the additional ground of appeal and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 80. On the contrary, the learned DR did not raise any serious objection if the issue is set aside to the AO for the fresh adjudication as per the provision of law. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 65 81. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the issue raised by the assessee is not arising from the order of the authorities below. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. 82. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property at 203, Abhishilp Complex. 83. The facts in brief are that AO during the assessment proceeding found that the assessee has not offered rental income from the house property jointly held with Smt. Swatiben & Amiben at 203, Abhishilp Complex. Therefore, the AO estimated the deemed rental income on such property at Rs. 61,291/- being 10% of book value of such property. The learned CIT(A) reduced the same to the extent of 3% of the book value of such property. Now the assessee is before us through additional ground of cross objection. 83.1 The learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that the assessee while filing return in response to notice under section 153A of the Act offered income from impugned house property. The lower authorities without appreciating this crucial fact estimated the deemed rental income from impugned property and added to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the same should be deleted. 84. On the other hand, the ld. DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 66 85. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From preceding discussion, we note that the limited issue before us is whether the assessee has declared rental income from the house property at 203 Abhishilp Complex or not. The assessee before us claimed that the she has offered income from impugned property in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. We also note that the assessee has also claimed before the learned CIT(A) that the rental income against the property in question has already been offered to tax by each co-owner. The relevant extract of the submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT-A reads under: 203-Abhiship Complex, Opp.Keshabag-(iv) 204-Abhiship Complex, Opp. Keshavbag. These two properties are jointly owned by the assessee with St, Swatiben Anilbhai an Smt. Amiben Jigneshbhai Shah and rent income is shown by all the co-owners. No other income arises on it. 85.1 The above contention of the assessee has nowhere been denied by the authorities below. Accordingly, if any addition is made on account of deemed rent with respect to the property in dispute, would lead to the double addition which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Even at the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record suggesting that the assessee has not offered any rental income against the property in dispute. Thus, the ground of cross objection raised by the assessee is allowed. 86. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 87. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The cross objection of the assessee for the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 67 assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 88. In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 247/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Giraben A Shah for A.Y. 2014-15. 89. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 7,47,50,000/-. 88. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 89. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the deemed rental income of Rs. 5,22,577/-. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 68 90. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 246/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 246/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 71 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 91. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 92. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 93. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 198/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 247/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 69 94. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 95. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 96. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 97. The issue raised by the first Additional ground of objection by the assessee is that lower authorities erred in not allowing the deduction of “delayed payment charges for Rs. 9,89,110/- 98. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of the assessee for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 81 of this order in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 70 99. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property at 203, Abhiship Complex. 100. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of the assessee for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 85 of this order in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 101. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 102. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 71 under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 103. In the result CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 239/Ahd/2018 by the assessee in case of Gira A Shah for A.Y. 2015-16. 104. The assessee vide letter dated 28-01-2020 and 10-01-2023 raised additional ground of appeal. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional grounds of appeal raised in captioned appeal is also accepted. 105. The only issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 1 to 3 of her appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,88,458/- on account of unexplained jewellery. 106. The AO during the assessment proceeding found that assessee in her balance sheet as on 31 st March 2014 has shown jewellery of Rs. 57,33,875/- only whereas the assessee in the balance sheet dated 31 st March 2015 prepared after search shown jewelry of 92,31,304/- i.e. net increase of Rs. 34,97,429/-. The assessee during the assessment proceeding furnished purchase bills of jewellery aggregating to Rs. 12,33,615/-only. However, the source and mode of payment against such bills was not provided. Therefore, the AO treated the value of jewellery for Rs. 34,97,429/- as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. 107. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) who has upheld the addition made by the AO in part by observing as under: IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 72 The appellant contended \ that all these jewellery for which additions have been made is shown in the ledger account maintained by the appellant. Purchase bills in support of the same were filed. The appellant contended that payment of all these purchases have been made through regular banking channel to the vendors and it is reflected in the bank account of the appellant, hence, additions made by the AO are not justified. The appellant also contended that no opportunity was given to the appellant for the additions made. On going through the facts of the case, it is found that the appellant submitted the appellant submitted bills for purchase of jewellery and no defect was found in the bills produced by the AO in the remand report proceedings. The appellant rns-Je pay.Ti&nt for purchase of this jewellery through normal banking channel to the extent of Rs.18,79,328/- as per the bank account produced before me (BOI A/c No.200110110002304). This payment is matched with the bills produced for purchase. Therefore, additions to the extent of Rs.25,08,971/- are deleted. Regarding, the balance of Rs.9,88,4587-, the appellant claimed that payment was made from bank account, but no evidence was produced. Hence, additions to the extent of Rs.9,88,458/- are confirmed. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 108. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 109. The learned AR before us contended that considering the financial profile of the assessee, no addition on investment in the jewellery is warranted. In other words, the assessee was having sufficient resources to acquire such meagre amount of jewellery. Therefore, in the absence of necessary details about the source of money used in the purchase of jewellery, the addition made in the hands of the assessee cannot survive. 110. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 111. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee in the year under consideration has shown net increase in the value of jewellery for Rs. 34,97,429/- only. The learned CIT(A) found that assessee was able to furnish bills and payment details to the extent of Rs. 25,08,971/- only. Thus, the learned CIT(A) treated the remaining value of jewellery for Rs. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 73 9,88,458/- as unexplained. Thus, the issue before us is limited for the amount of Rs. 9,88,458/- only. 111.1 Indeed it is the burden of the assessee to justify the source of money used for the purpose of jewellery. However, we find that the CBDT vide instruction dated 11 th May 1994 directed the revenue authority to provide credit jewelry to extent of 500 gm or 100 gm for each member of family being female or male as the case may be in case where assessee was not able to furnish necessary details. We further note the coordinate bench of Jaipur Tribunal in case of Ram Prakash Mahawar vs. DCIT reported in 115 taxmann.com 241 held that this benefit should be extended even in case the family members already claimed jewellery from explained sources. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in above mentioned case reads as under: 2.6 We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant materials available on record. The first issue is regarding the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 4,57,404/- on account of unexplained gold jewellery by rejecting the claim of the assessee being acquisition of the said jewellery by way of purchases made from time to time and also recorded in the books of account of the assessee. There is no dispute regarding the fact that jewellery to the extent 343.328 gms. represents the purchases made by the assessee from time to time which is duly supported by the purchase bills found during the search and seizure action. The said quantity of jewellery is duly recorded in the balance sheet/books of account of the assessee and his family members. Once the AO has not disputed the purchases made by the assessee of the said quantity of jewellery then the same cannot be treated as unexplained jewellery of the assessee. The AO has denied the benefit of the said quantity of jewellery on the ground that since the benefit of reasonable jewellery to the extent of 850 gms. as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 is already granted, therefore, to that extent, no further benefit can be granted. It is pertinent to note that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 has explained in case of gold jewellery found in the possession of the assessee during the course of search and seizure action and the assessee is not able to explain the same then the quantity prescribed under the said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 in respect of married female member, unmarried female member and male member of the assessee would be treated as a reasonable holding of jewellery on account of acquisition of that much jewellery on various occasions of marriages, other social & customary occasions as prevailing in the society. Therefore, a reasonable possession of the jewellery as per the customs prevailing in the society is the basis for allowing the benefit of certain quantity of jewellery explained by the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 which means that the assessee need not to explain the source of jewellery found in his possession to the extent of specified quantity treated as reasonable possession by family members of the assessee. The said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 allowing the specific quantity as reasonable and need not to be explained, does not include the jewellery which is otherwise explained by proof of documents of acquisition as well as declared/recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Hence, the quantity of jewellery which is otherwise explained by the assessee by producing the purchase bills as well as recorded in the books of account of the assessee IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 74 and the AO had not disputed the said explanation then the quantity which is explained otherwise by producing the purchase bills and books of account would not be treated as part of the quantity of reasonable possession as prescribed under the said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994. Therefore, the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 will not take away the benefit of the explained jewellery acquired by the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the quantity of jewellery to the extent of 343.328 gms. has to be allowed separately as explained jewellery and no addition can be made to that extent. 111.2 In view of the above discussion and considering the fact that entire family members of the assessee have been engaged in various business activities and have been paying huge amount of taxes on the income disclosed by them in different assessment years. Accordingly, we are inclined to hold that there was no gold available with the assessee which can be termed as unexplained. Thus, in our considered view no addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 112. The assessee vide additional ground of appeal dated 28-01-2020 challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 113. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence, the same is dismissed accordingly. 114. The assessee vide additional ground of appeal dated 10-01-2023 challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 115. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 75 Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The cross objection of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 116. In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 268/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for AY 2009-10. 117. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,28,75,000/- and interest thereon for Rs. 17,77,207/-. 118. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 76 119. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 5,75,947/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 7,29,806/-. 120. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 except for the property at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which is dealt separately by us with assessee cross objection. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10 except property mentioned above. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 121. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,583/- on account of change in valuation of closing stock. 122. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 77 by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 123. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 204/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 268/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 124. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset, we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph No. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same, the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 125. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 126. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 127. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 78 property situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which was jointly held and used for residential purpose. 128. The facts in brief are that AO during the assessment proceeding found that the assessee has not offered rental income from the house property jointly held with Smt. Giraben & Kusumben at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II. Therefore, the AO estimated the deemed rental income on such property at 10% of book value of such property. However, the learned CIT(A) reduced the same to the extent of 3% of the book value of such property. Now the assessee is before us through additional ground of cross objection. 129. The learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that property 36, Amarshree Bungalow was used by the assessee for residential purpose, hence the same is self-occupied. Likewise, the property at 25, Aryavart-II jointly owned with Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah was self-occupied by the co-owner (Giraben Atulbhai Shah). Therefore, the annual rent of both the property as per the provision of section 23(2) of the Act shall be deemed at Nil. Hence, the addition made by the revenue authority on both the properties should be deleted. 130. On the other hand learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 131. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we note that property at 25, Aryavart- II has been held by us as self-occupied property of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah vide para 19.4 of this order while adjudicating CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 by the Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah. In our consider view, no rental income can be accrued to the appellant assessee from the jointly held property as the same is self-occupied by the other co-owner. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition made w.r.t. to the impugned property. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 79 131.1 Coming to next property 36, Amarshree Bungalow jointly held with Smt Kusumben H Shah. The assessee before us claimed that the she has been using the impugned for residential purpose as self-occupied property. We also note that the assessee has also claimed before the learned CIT(A) that the impugned property is used by her for residential purpose. The relevant extract of the submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT-A reads as under: (ii) 36, Amrashirish Bunglows this property is jointly owned by the assessee with Smt. Kusumben H. Shah bit is is used for assessee’s own residence-hence it is self occupied property and no deemed property income arises from that. 131.2 The above contention of the assessee has nowhere been denied by the authorities below. Even at the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record suggesting that impugned property is not a self-occupied property in dispute. Accordingly, we hereby held that the impugned property is self-occupied property of the assessee. Therefore, as per the provision of section 23(2) of the Act no income can be charged. Thus, the ground of cross objection raised by the assessee is allowed. 132. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 133. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 80 No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 134. In the result, the CO of the assessee is hereby partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 269/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2010-11. 135. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of loan for Rs. 2,00,30,000/- and interest thereon for Rs. 18,33,207/-. 136. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2010-11 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 137. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account deemed rental income of Rs. 5,75,947/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 7,29,806/-. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 81 138. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2010-11 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 139. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,01,378/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 140. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2010-11 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 141. In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 82 Coming to CO NO. 205/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 269/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 142. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph No. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 143. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 144. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 145. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 146. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2010-11 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The objection of the assessee for the assessment IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 83 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of the assessee.The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 147. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 148. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2010-11 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 149. In the result, CO of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 270/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2011-12. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 84 150. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 4,12,00,000/- and interest thereon for Rs. 36,47,767/-. 151. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 152. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 1,92,859/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 5,36,947/-. 153. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenuein IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue.The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 85 under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 154. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,17,056/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 155. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 156. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,82,66,000/- on account of unexplained investment. 157. The AO during assessment proceedings found that the assessee has shown addition to fixed assets for Rs. 97,57,950/- on account of plot no. 548/28 at Makraba. The AO also found that there was document marked as page 9 of annexure A-9 found from the premises of Shri Ashit Vohra. On the top of impugned page heading was given as “548/28 bangla pete” and below that several amounts aggregating to Rs. 8,82,66,600/- noted as payment to be made on different dates in F.Y. 2010-11. The impugned pages were confronted to main IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 86 person of the group namely Shri Atul Hiralal Shah while recording his statement under section 132(4) of the Act dated 03-02-2015. Shri Atul Hiralal Shah stated that presently he does not recall but will provide detail explanation on a later date. Accordingly, Shri Atul Shah vide letter dated 02-03-2015 submitted that Rs. 8,82,66,600/- are unaccounted payment and same has been offered to tax by him. The AO in view of the above sought explanation from the assessee along with documentary evidences. 157.1 The assessee in response only submitted ledger copy of the property showing payment through banking channel at Rs. 97,57,950/- and claimed that no cash paid in connection of purchase of impugned plot. 157.2 However, the AO disagreed and held that impugned page 9 is in connection of plot 548/28 purchased by the assessee. The main person of the assessee group also accepted that transaction on impugned page represent unaccounted payment. Therefore, the AO considering the fact that the property registered in the name of the assessee made addition to her total income for Rs. 8,82,66,600/- being unaccounted investment. 158. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 15.1 The appellant contended that the document seized during the course of search and under consideration has not been found from her premises but the same was found from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, third party. This document is not in the handwriting of the appellant or any authorized person of the appellant. The seized paper was not signed by anyone and name of the appellant is nowhere mention in the seized paper, The appellant also contended that no question was asked to Shri Ashit Vora about the transactions noted in this page during the course! of search. No statement of Shri Ashit Vora was recorded during post search and assessment proceedings on this issue. The appellant also contended that the heading of this paper is written "548/28-bangla pete" but the appellant has purchased agricultural land bearing survey No. 548/28 and there is no bungalow even as on date on that plot of land. There is no mention of area of land, address of the location of the land. With these contentions, the appellant stated that it is a dumb document as far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant also contended that the presumption u/s.292C of the Act is for the person from whose premises the documents are found. Therefore, the presumption u/s.292C is not applicable to the appellant. The appellant further contended that no enquiry was made by the AO from the vendors of so IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 87 called land. The property has not been referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to obtain fair market value of the property. It has also been contended that these entries on this page do not seems to have written as and when the payment is reflected. Entry of dated 6/10/2010 amounting to Rs.2,82,66,600/- is above the entry of Rs.1 crore on 14/9/2010. It has been stated by the appellant that if transactions related to property mentioned on any paper, the payment of cheque and / cash both are written, as and when it is paid. However, there is no payment has / been shown through account payee cheque in this paper. The appellant further j contended that agricultural land at survey No. 548/28 was purchased by the appellant by making payment of Rs.92.88 lacs through account payee cheques. If the cash payment is considered as correct, the cash component is about nine times j of the cheque payment which is not the practice in the real estate market. The appellant contended that she has not authorized to Shri AtuI H. Shah who has given in writing before the AO accepting this amount as unexplained cash payment. With these contentions and citing several case laws in support of these contentions, the appellant stated that additions made by the AO may be deleted. 159. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before. 159.1 Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 160. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The only controversy arises for the adjudication whether the assessee has made unaccounted investment in the purchase of Plot No. 548/28 as discussed in the order of the AO. The entire thrust of the Revenue for the unaccounted investment in the land was based on the document seized from Shri Ashit Vohra marked as page annexure A-9 where head note was written as “548/28- bangla pete” below that several amount on different dates was recorded. On the basis of the same, the AO alleged that the amount written on impugned page represents unaccounted cash payment against purchase of plot. The assessee has denied to have entered into any unrecorded transaction in connection with the purchase of impugned property. 160.1 We are also conscious to the well-settled position of law that a loose paper/ document/diary etc. do not carry evidentiary, unless or until such document is a IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 88 speaking one in itself or becomes a speaking once if read in conjunction to some other corroborative evidence found during the course of search or post search investigation. In this regard, we referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 wherein it was held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. In case of present assessee, we note that impugned page 9 of annexure A-9 found from the premises of third party namely Ashit Vohra, do not contain the name of the assessee, the nature of amount recorded also not specified and no entry recorded on such page was corroborated with other materials found or from the books of accounts. The AO merely on the basis of submission made by group person Shri Atul H Shah that the such amount represents unaccounted payment which he has offered to tax has held that such amount was paid by the assessee against purchase of plot. It is also important to note that on perusal of assessment order, we do not find that Shri Atul Shah anywhere stated that the amount paid by the present assessee against purchase of plot. Indeed, he stated that he has offered tax on the same. Further, the AO did not take a pain to enquire about the involvement of on money in the transaction from the vender of the plot. It pertinent to note that unaccounted payment alleged by the AO is about 9 time of the documented price which is not possible. If the AO has doubt, he should have referred mater to the valuation officer to find out the market value of the plot in question or he/she should have brought comparable cases. 160.2 In view of the above, and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that no credence can be given to the impugned page 9 found from premises of Shri Ashit Vohra for making addition in the hands of the present assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 161. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 89 Coming to CO NO. 206/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 270/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 162. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph No. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 163. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 164. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 165. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 166. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The objection of the assessee for the assessment IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 90 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of the assessee.The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 167. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 168. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 163/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 163/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 66 of this order in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 167. In the result, CO of the assessee partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 253/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2012-13. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 91 168. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 2,67,00,000/-. 169. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 170. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 1,92,859/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 5,36,947/-. 171. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenuein IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue.The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 92 under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 172. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,969/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 173. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 174. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 200/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 253/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 175. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 93 following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 176. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 177. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 178. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 179. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The objection of the assessee for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of the assessee.The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 180. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 94 for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 181. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 182. In the result CO of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 254/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2013-14. 183. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,16,05,000/-. 184. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 95 for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 185. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account deemed rental income of Rs. 1,92,859/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 5,36,947/-. 186. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenuein IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 187. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,70,369/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 188. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 96 year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 189. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 201/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 254/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 190. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 191. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 192. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 97 193. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 194. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The objection of the assessee for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 195. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in not allowing the deduction of delayed payment charges of Rs.25,49,337/-. 196. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 81 of this order in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 98 Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 197. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property 203 Abhishilp Complex used for residential purpose. 198. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 85 of this order in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 199. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 200. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 99 assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013- 14. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 201. In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 255/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2014-15. 202. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. 203. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 100 under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 204. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 2,37,065/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 3,39,435/-. 205. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenuein IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 206. In the result appeal of the Revenue dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 202/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 255/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 207. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 101 208. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 209. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 210. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 211. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The objection of the assessee for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 212. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in not allowing the deduction of delayed payment charges of Rs. 6,46,486/-. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 102 213. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 81 of this order in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 214. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 215. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 103 present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 216. In the result CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 256/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Swatiben Anilbhai Shah for A.Y. 2015-16. 217. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 12,15,49,801/-. 218. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 219. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account deemed rental income of Rs. 6,92,612/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 9,80,873/-. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 104 220. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenuein IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in IT(SS)A No. 268/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 120 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 221. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue dismissed. Coming to CO. NO. 203/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 256/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 222. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset, we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 223. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 224. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 105 issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 225. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection no.1 is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property held situated at 36, Amarshree Bungalow and 25, Aryavart-II which jointly held and used for residential purpose. 226. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 204/AHD/2019 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The objection of the assessee for the assessment 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 131 of this order in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 227. The next issue raised by the assessee vide additional ground of objection is that the lower authorities erred in taxing the notional rental income on property 203 Abhishilp Complex used for residential purpose. 228. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 197/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2013-14 has been decided by us vide paragraph IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 106 No. 85 of this order in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2013-14 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 229. The assessee vide next additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 230. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 231. In the result, CO of the assessee party allowed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 258/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Amiben Jigneshbhai Shah for A.Y. 2011-12. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 107 232. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,51,00,000/- and interest thereon for Rs. 65,19,607/-. 233. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 234. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account deemed rental income of Rs. 2,01,031/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 2,87,187/-. 235. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 108 Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 236. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 237. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 238. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 207/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 258/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 239. The assessee vide letter dated 26-02-2020 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 109 following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 240. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 241. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 242. The assessee vide additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 243. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2011-12 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 110 244. In the result CO of the assessee is dismissed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 259/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Amiben Jigneshbhai Shah for A.Y. 2012-13. 245. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,88,00,000/-. 246. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 247. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account deemed rental income of Rs. 2,47,694/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 3,53,848/-. 248. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 111 be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 249. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 250. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 251. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 208/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 258/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 112 252. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 253. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 254. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 255. The assessee vide additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 256. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 113 that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 257. In the result, the CO of the assessee is dismissed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 261/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of Amiben Jigneshbhai Shah for A.Y. 2014-15. 258. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,93,00,000/-. 259. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 260. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 2,47,694/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 3,53,848/-. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 114 261. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 262. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,98,330/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 263. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 115 264. In the result appeal of the Revenue dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 209/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 261/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 265. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 266. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 267. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 268. The assessee vide additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 269. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 116 assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 270. In the result CO of the assessee in dismissed. Coming to IT(SS)A No. 249/Ahd/2018 by the Revenue in case of kusumben Hiralal Shah for A.Y. 2009-10. 271. The first raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit of loan for Rs. 1,42,56,012/- and interest thereon for Rs 43,63,206/-. 272. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 117 under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 273. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account rental income of Rs. 2,75,660/- instead of confirming entire addition of Rs. 3,93,800/-. 274. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 19 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 275. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,96,288/- on account of change of change in valuation of closing stock. 276. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 243/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal of the revenue in case of assessee on hand for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue in IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 118 case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 24 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 277. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to CO NO. 199/Ahd/2019 in ITA No 249/Ahd/2018 filed by the Assessee 278. The assessee vide letter dated 03-08-2021 raised additional ground of objection. At the outset we note that identical additional ground was raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO NO. 195/Ahd/2019 in ITA No. 243/Ahd/2018 which is accepted by us vide paragraph no. 7 of this order. Hence, following the same the additional objection raised in captioned CO is also accepted. 279. The assessee vide cross objection challenged the validity of assessment order under 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the reason that JCIT given mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act. 280. At the outset, we note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been directed by the assessee not to press the issue raised in ground of cross objection. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 281. The assessee vide additional ground of objection challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 119 reason that material relied was found from third party requiring to issue notice under section 153C of the Act. 282. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its additional grounds of objection for the AY 2009-10 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee namely Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in CO. No. 195/Ahd/2019 shall also be applicable on ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. The cross objection of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in case of Smt. Giraben Atulbhai Shah for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied on the ground of objection of the present assessee for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10. Hence, the grounds of objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 283. In the result CO of the assessee in dismissed. In the combined result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee and the Cos. Are decided as under: Sl. No(s) IT(SS)A No./C.O Asset. Year(s) In the case of Results 1-10 IT(SS)A No.243, 244,245,246, 247 /Ahd/2018 With C.O Nos.195, 196, 163, 197, 198 /Ahd/2019 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 Smt. Giraben AtulbhaiShah In the combined results all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed C.O. No.195 & 163/Ahd/2019 are partly allowed C.O No.196/Ahd/2019 is dismissed C.O No.197 and 198/Ahd/2019 partly allowed for statistical purposes 11. IT(SS)A No.239/Ahd/20 18 2015-16 Smt. Giraben AtulbhaiShah, The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 120 12-17 IT(SS)A Nos.268,269,2 70/Ahd/2018 With C.O nos.204,205, 206/Ahd/2019 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Smt. Swatiben Anilbhai Shah, The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C.O filed by the assesse are partly allowed. 18-25 IT(SS)A No.253,254,25 5, 256/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.200,201,20 2, 203/Ahd/2019 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 Smt. Swatiben Anilbhai Shah, The appeal by the Revenue are dismissed whereas C.O No.200/Ahd/2019 are partly allowed C.O No.201 & 202/Ahd/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purposes 26-27 IT(SS)A No.249/Ahd/20 18 With C.O No.199/Ahd/20 19 2009-10 Smt. Kusumben Hiralal Shah, The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and C.O filed by the assessee is also dismissed. 28-29. IT(SS)A No.258/Ahd/20 18 With C.O No.207/Ahd/20 19 2011-12 Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and C.O filed by the assessee is also dismissed. 30-31 IT(SS) No.259/Ahd/20 18 With C.O No.208/Ahd/20 19 2012-13 Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and C.O filed by the assessee is also dismissed. 32-33 IT(SS)A No.261/Ahd/20 18 With C.O No.209/Ahd/20 19 2014-15 Smt. Amiben Jigneshkumar Shah, The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and C.O filed by the assessee is also dismissed. IT(S)A no.243/AHD/2018 with C.O No.195/Ahd/18 31 others) A.Y. 2010-11 121 Order pronounced in the Court on 31/01/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 31/01/2023 Manish