ACIT,Central Cir-2, , Surat V. Shri Jayeshkumar DhirajlalMistry, Surat

ITSSA 25/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3105 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Set aside
• Section: 13; 153C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR(S): 2009-10 TO 2013-14 (H EARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ROOM NO.504, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001 VS. JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY, 40, JASUKAKA NI WADI, A.K. ROAD, FULPADA SURAT 395005. PAN: ACXPM 7158 A / APPLICANT /RESPONDENT/ / OBJECTOR ASSESSEE BY SHRI RASESH SHAH CA REVENUE BY SHRI RITESH MISHRA CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 13.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 . 1 0.2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER BENCH: 1. THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO) THEREIN BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, HEREINAFTER CALLED LD CIT(A) SURAT DATED 13.08.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) AY 2009-10 TO 2014-15. IN ALL APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT THE FIGURES OF PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED COMMON GROUND IN ALL COS RELATED TO VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 2 ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT).THEREFORE, ALL APPEALS OF REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEES COS WERE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID THE CONFLICTING DECISION. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND CO THEREIN ARE TREATED AS LEAD CASE. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL NO. IT(SS)A NO.21/SRT/2018 FOR AY 2009-10 HAS RAISED THE 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 DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.8,22,94,952/- IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFIRMING SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF EQUAL AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.8,22,94,952/- BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN THE SEIZED AND THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIALS WERE FOUND TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PREMISE OF SEARCHED ASSESSEE. 3.IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER THE LD.CIT(A)-4, SURAT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CO NO.19/SRT/2020 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.8,22,94,592/- ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED INCRIMINATING MATERIALS COLLECTED IN CASE OF SEAERCH OF ONE THIRD PARTY VIZ. SHRI PIYUSH MODI WHICH ARE NEITHER REFERRED IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ARE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153C MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED AND ORDERED OF CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE CONFIRMED DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.8,22,94,592/-. IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 3 3. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CASE OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHUBHAI BHADANI IN IT(SS)A NO. 02 TO 05/SRT/2019 AND CO NO. 24TO 27 /SRT/2020. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE SIMILAR (SAME) PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN CASE OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHUBHAI BHADANI, ON APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ LD CIT(A) WAS UPHELD. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SAME APROTICETIVE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT WAS MADE AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL DATED 22.09.2021 IN IT(SS)A NO.02 TO 05/SRT/2019 AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS:24 TO 27/SRT/2020. THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER(AO). THE LD.CIT-DR SUBMITS THAT THE AO MADE PROTECTIVE IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 4 ADDITION IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD.CIT-DR SUBMITS THAT HE FULLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.09.2021 IN IT(SS)A NO.02 TO 05/SRT/2019 AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS:24 TO 27/SRT/2020 IN ACIT VS. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI OF ITAT SURAT BENCH. WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF SHRI DILIP SOJITRA AND FIRST LAYER OF PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF PIYUSH MODI, SECOND LAYER OF PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE AND THIRD LAYER OF PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI. WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE COMMON WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI. THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THIS COMBINATION IN CASE OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI FOR A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2012-13 BY CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES, HAVE PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND WELL AS ON THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORDED THAT PIYUSH MODI WAS ACCOUNTANT OF DILIP SOJITRA AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH DILIP SOJITRA AS EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER AND SOME LAND TRANSACTIONS EITHER AS A CO-PURCHASER OR SELLER OR AS A MEDIATOR IN SOME LAND TRANSACTION AND ALL TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN HIS NAME AND APPEARED IN THE SIGNATURE THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 5 CONCLUDED IN PARA 9.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENT IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE AND OTHER PERSON CLAIMED BY DILIP SOJITRA ARE HIS PARTNER IN ALL THE TRANSACTIONS. WE FIND THAT ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE AND COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF DILIP SOJITRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SHRI JIGNESH J PATEL HAS GIVEN A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO ASSESSEE STATING THAT HIS EARLIER AFFIDAVIT WAS GIVEN TO DILIP SOJITRA WAS OBTAINED BY THREAT AND FEAR AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. 23. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 9.8 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT ON 18.10 . 2016 DILIP SOJITRA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PHOTO COPY OF SEIZED PAPER CLAIMING IT TO BE A SAMADHAN KARAR BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI PINABHAI GUJARATI SIGNED AS A WITNESS AND THAT ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT IS WITH THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH SAMADHAN KARAR. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT PHOTO COPY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTNERSHIP / JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DILIP SOJITRA. MOREOVER, THE NAME OF JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT MENTIONED. ON THE STAND OF ASSESSEE THAT DILIP SOJITRA WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF ASSESSEE, DILIP SOJITRA CLAIMED THAT BOGUS TRANSACTION OF SALARY IS PREPARED BY ASSESSEE IN COLLUSION WITH A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT DILIP SOJITRA WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME HAS SHOWN SALARY INCOME HAS NOT REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE HAVING OPPORTUNITY OF REVISE IT. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILED DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 9.12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT DILIP SOJITRA HAS FAILED TO PROVE WITH REASONABLE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE IS HIS PARTNER IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), AGREEMENT, PARTNERSHIP DEED OR ANY DOCUMENT IN WRITING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY PARTNERSHIP / JOINT VENTURE WITH HIM. DILIP SOJITRA ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SIGNED VOUCHERS, SLIPS OR NOTING TO PROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT BETWEEN PARTNERS OR INTRODUCTION OR REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN THE JOINT VENTURE. 24. WE FIND THAT DESPITE RECORDING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED SOME LAND TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH DILIP SOJITRA, THEREFORE, TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF REVENUE LEAKAGE A PROTECTIVE ADDITION IS MADE AT THE HAND OF ASSESSEE, AS MADE IN THE CASE OF DILIP SOJITRA ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. WE FIND THAT ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD CIT(A) CALLED REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. 25. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION FROM THE HAND OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HAND OF DILIP SOJITRA AND THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF PIYUSH MODI (ACCOUNTANT/ CA), JAYESHKUMAR D MISTRY AND RAMESHBHAI R BHADANI (ASSESSEE), THE BASIS OF PROTECTIVE ADDITION IS MADE ONLY ON THE CONJECTURE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO SOME LAND TRANSACTION GROUP WITH DILIP SOJITRA AND THERE MAY BE PROBABILITY THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT BE A PARTNER. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ON SATISFACTION THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED PERTAINS TO IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 6 DILIP SOJITRA AND THERE IS NO CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH SEIZED MATERIALS. THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER AND WAS DUTY BOUND TO TAX THE REAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE, HIS DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON COGENT EVIDENCE AND SOUND REASONING WHICH IS MISSING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE LIVE LINK WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ONLY TO CIRCUMVENT OF FUTURE HAPPENING FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF IS NOT SURE OF. THE SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT. 26. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER HAS RECORDED THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS IN A GRAPHIC AND HELD THAT SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS WAS MADE IN THE HAND OF DILIP SOJITRA AND FIRST LAYER PROTECTIVE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE HAND OF PIYUSH MODI, SECOND LAYER PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS IN THE HAND OF JAYESH MISTRY AND THIRD LAYER IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT TO FIX THE LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE THERE NEEDS TO BE A LIVE CONNECTION OR LINK BETWEEN THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND DELETED THE PROTECTED ADDITION AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 27. WE HAVE INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE IT IS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER PARTNER NOR HAVING ANY SHARE HOLDING IN ANY JOINT VENTURE NOR THERE IS EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH CONCERN WITH DILIP SOJITRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING PROTECTIVE ADDITION AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE WHEN IT APPEARS TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO HAS RECEIVED THAT INCOME AND PRIMA FACIE IT APPEARS THAT INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY X OR Y OR BY BOTH TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINED THE SAID INCOME BY TAKING APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOTH X OR Y. 28. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN LALJI HARIDAS VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) HELD IN CASES WHERE IT APPEARS TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO HAS RECEIVED THAT INCOME AND PRIMA FACIE IT APPEARS THAT THE INCOME MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED EITHER BY A OR B OR BY BOTH TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE RELEVANT INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE THE SAID QUESTION BY TAKING APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS BOTH AGAINST A AND B. 29. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT INCOME IS RECEIVED AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT DILIP SOJITRA FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SIGNED VOUCHERS, SLIPS OR NOTING TO PROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT BETWEEN PARTNERS OR INTRODUCTION OR REPAYMENT OF CAPITAL IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN THE JOINT VENTURE, THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS AT THIRD LEVEL IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS, WE AFFIRMS THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 30. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 7 31. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN CO BY ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. IT(SS)A NO. 3 TO 5/SRT/2019 AND CO NO. 25 TO 27/SRT/2019, FOR AY 2010-11 TO 2014-15 32. AS RECORDED ABOVE THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITS APPEAL AND CO RESPECTIVELY, AS RAISED IN AY 2009-10. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR AY 2009-10 AND THUS CO THEREIN HAVE BECOME INFRACTIOUS, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPALS OF CONSISTENCY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2010-11 TO 2014-15 AND CO THEREIN IS ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 33. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ALL YEARS ARE DISMISSED AND ALL COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 6. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COMMON FACTS OF THE CASE, WHEREIN THE SIMILAR PROTECTIVE ADDITION, WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WERE CONFIRMED IN CASE OF RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI(SUPRA), AS NOTED ABOVE, THERE IS NO VARIATION OF FACTS, THEREFORE, WITH THE SAME REASONING, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. CROSS OBJECTION NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2013- 14(ASSESSEE): 7. CONSIDERING THE FACT THE WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ABOVE, THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 & C.O.NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y.2009-10 TO 2013-14, JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJLAL MISTRY 8 9. TO SUM UP, FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NOS.21 TO 25/SRT/2018 AND FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NOS.19 TO 23/SRT/2020 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 TO 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED. COPY OF THE INSTANT COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILE(S). ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (DR ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 13/10/2021 / SGR* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / SR.PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, SURAT