SHRI LAXMICHAND P. LALWANI, Ahmedabad V. THE DEPUTY CIT, CEN. CIRCLE-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 35/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7828 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARTAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Share purchase agreement; Peak credit; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 1 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMED ABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN,AM) I.T.(SS)A. NO .35/AHD/2003 (BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-1987 TO 19-12-1997) SHRI LAXMICHAND P. LALWANI 5 GODHAVART BHAVAN, SORABJI COMPOUND, WADAJ, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A. NO. 76/AHD/2003 (BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-1987 TO 19-12-1997) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI LAXMICHAND P. LALWANI 5 GODHAVART BHAVAN, SORABJI COMPOUND, WADAJ, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. S. N.DIVATIA. RESPONDENT BY : MR. KARTAR SINGH, CIT (DR) ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 19-1-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-1-2012 PER: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE B LOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17- 12-2002 PASSED BY LD CIT (A)-III, AHMEDABAD AND THE Y RELATE TO THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 19.12.1997. IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 2 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SET OUT IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ARRANGING FINANCE. THE DEPARTMENT C ARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19-12-19 97. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, MANY FILES CONTAINING LOOSE PAPERS AND MANY DIARIES WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE AND OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE DOCUME NTS CONTAINED DETAILS LOAN ARRANGED/GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, INTEREST COMPUTATIO NS, COPIES OF HUNDIES, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPTS OF SHARE TRANSFER DEEDS, D IVIDEND WARRANTS, PERSONAL EXPENSES ETC. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THE ASSESS EE FILED HIS BLOCK RETURN DISCLOSING AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.3.00 LAKHS. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT WERE VOLUMIN OUS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE SEIZED MATERIALS AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. O N THE BASIS OF AUDIT REPORT, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING ADDITION OF ALL THE LOANS GIVEN, INTEREST TH EREON, BROKERAGE INCOME, SHARES INVESTMENTS, GIFT RECEIPTS ETC, AND DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.5.16 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTERS IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A), WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (A) ADDITION OF RS.4,58,984/-, BEING THE BROKERAGE ON ALLEGED MATERIALIZED TRANSACTIONS. (B) NON-DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES RELATING TO SUB-BRO KERAGE PAYMENTS. (C) ADDITION OF RS.1.50 LAKHS PERTAINING TO TRANSACTIONS IN AN UNDISCLOSED BANK. (D) ADDITION OF RS.5.20 LAKHS MADE TOWARDS OWN IN VESTMENTS. IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 3 3 THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL CHALLENGING ALL THE RELIEF S GRANTED BY LD CIT (A). IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE CONTESTED. (A) VARIOUS ADDITIONS PERTAINING TO LOAN T RANSACTIONS AGGREGATING TO RS.3,74,27,969/- (B) UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SHARES/ DEBENTURES RS.15,31,291/- (C) INVESTMENT IN SHARES/DEBENTURES RS.4,80,580/- (D) HUNDI AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF JAYD EEP TEXTILES RS.2,50,000/- (E) UNEXPLAINED GIFTS RS.1.00 LAKH S (F) ADDITION AS PER PARA 16(XIII) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.- RS.1,50,000/- (G) UNACCOUNTED GIFTS RS.6.00 LAKHS . 3. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE SHALL DISCUSS THE BACK GROUND OF THE CASE IN BRIEF. THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE ASSES SEE INDICATED THAT HE IS A FINANCE BROKER LINKING THE BORROWER AND LENDER AND EARNS ONLY BROKERAGE INCOME. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME IN HIS AUDIT REPORT. CERTAIN DIARIES CONTAINED THE NAMES OF BOTH BORROWERS AND LENDERS, WHILE OTHERS CONTAINED ONLY THE NAME OF BORROWER. THE AO, DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SOUGHT DETAILS OF BOTH THE BORROWERS A ND LENDERS, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAME. HENCE THE AO HAS PROCE EDED TO ADD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ALSO THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS HIS OWN INVESTMENTS. THE SAID ADDITION IS THE MAJOR ADDITION IN THIS CASE. 4. WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRST. THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,58,984/-. AS STATED EARLIER, THE DIARIES CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS MANAGED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 4 4 THE TRANSACTIONS NOTED IN A PARTICULAR DIARY ARE ON LY FINANCIAL PROPOSALS AND THEY WERE NOT PUT THROUGH IN ACTION. ACCORDINGLY, HE PL EADED THAT HE DID NOT EARN ANY BROKERAGE ON IT. THE SAID CONTENTIONS WERE REJECTE D BY THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY HE ADDED THE BROKERAGE AMOUNT RELATING TO THOSE FINANC E TRANSACTIONS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ONE CANNOT FIND THIS ADDITION IN ONE PLACE, I.E., ONE HAS TO DO SOME MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE AGG REGATE FIGURE OF RS.4,58,984/-. FROM THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A), IT SEEMS THAT HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ALL THE ADDITIONS PERTAINING TO FINANCE BROKERAGE, THOUGH NO SPECIFIC DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 4.1 THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN I S FINANCE BROKER. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEALED THE DETAILS OF RELEVANT FINANCIA L TRANSACTIONS. IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS ARE MERE PROPOSALS , THEN IT IS HIS DUTY TO BRING SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON RECORD. HOWEVER, IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CONTENTIONS CITED ABOVE. HENCE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF SUB-BROKERAGE. WE NOTICE THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF SU B-BROKERAGE. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN REJECTING THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT TWO ISSUES IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE INTERCONNECTED. THEY PERTAIN TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1.50 LAKHS AND RS.5.2 0 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. THE SEARCH DO CUMENTS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH M/S SIN DH MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK IN THE NAME OF HIS SON NAMED MANOJ LALWANI. THE ASSES SEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AND IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 5 5 CHEQUES, BUT THE WITHDRAWALS WERE MAINLY THROUGH CL EARING CHEQUES. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS ARE FINDING PLACE IN PARA 22 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. THE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK AGGREGATING T O RS.52,01,291/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD ACTED AS INTERMEDIARY HELPING HIS CLIENTS IN APPLYI NG FOR SHARES IN PUBLIC ISSUES, SINCE THE DIVIDEND WARRANTS SEIZED DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD CIT (A), THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION, IF ANY, S HOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE PEAK CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD E ARNED ABOUT RS.1.50 LAKHS ON THESE TYPES OF SHARES TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT (A) DETERMINED THE PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT AT RS.5,20,000/- AND ADDED THE S AME. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- CL AIMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID SHARE BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS . NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING BOTH THE ADDITIONS. HOWEVER, FROM THE CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) ON THESE TWO ISSUES, WE NOTICE THAT HE H AS CONFIRMED THESE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED B ANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.52.01 LAKHS AND THE LD CIT (A) HAS TAKEN THE PEAK AMOUNT ROTATED THEREIN AT A REASONABLE FIGURE OF RS.5.20 LAKHS AS PER THE ALTERNATIVE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS SATED THAT HE HAS EARNED A BOUT RS.1.50 LAKHS FROM THE SAID DEALINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR VIEW, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE THESE TWO ADDITIONS, SINCE HE HAS ACCEPTE D THEM LD CIT (A), UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THE SAID CONCURRENCE IS AGAINST THE LAW. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. EVEN OTHERWISE, BOTH THE ADDITIONS APPEAR TO BE REASONAB LE TO US. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) ON THESE TWO ISSUES. IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 6 6 7. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3.74 CRORES. AS STATED EARLIER, T HE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS CARRIED THROUGH THE ASSESSEE, SIN CE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF BORROWERS AND LENDERS. HOWEVER, THERE W ERE ENOUGH EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED AS A FINANCE BROKER ONL Y IN THESE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH FACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE AUDITORS IN THEIR SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ASSESSED THE BROKERAGE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT (A) HAS OPINED AS UNDER I N PARA 7.2 OF HIS ORDER (PAGE 12) AS UNDER:- ON CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT SUBMISSIONS, FACTS O N RECORD AND SEIZED MATERIAL, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE TAXED ONLY FOR BROKERAGE EARNED ON THE TR ANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH HAVE BEEN TA BULATED BY THE AUDITORS IN THEIR AUDIT REPORT, WHICH IS REFERRED A ND ANNEXED TO ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LOAN AMOUNTS AND ALSO THE RELEVANT INTEREST INCOME, AS THEY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE DECI SION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A FINA NCE BROKER, IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO ASSESS THE LOAN AMOUNTS TRANSACTED THROU GH THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THEY ARE THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 7 7 8. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE UNACCOUNTED I NVESTMENT IN SHARES/DEBENTURE AMOUNTING TO RS.15,31,291/-. WITH REGARD TO THIS I SSUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY , WE DISMISS THIS GROUND. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF R S.4,80,580/- PERTAINING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES/DEBENTURES. THE AO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND WARRANTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES FROM WHICH THE IMPUGN ED DIVIDEND WARRANTS WERE RECEIVED. HENCE, THE AO COMPUTED THE INVESTMENT AM OUNT TAKING THE NUMBER OF SHARES AND THE FACE VALUE THERE OF AT RS.4,80,580/- AND ADDED THE SAME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THIS IS DISCUSSED IN PAGE 35 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE BASIS OF MAKING THIS ADDITION IS THE TRANSACTIONS MADE IN THE UNDISCLOSE D BANK ACCOUNT. THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WAS DISCUS SED BY US IN PARA 6 SUPRA, WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED THE PEAK AMOUNT ROTATED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AT RS.5,20, 000/-, HE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.4,80,580/-. 9.1 ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT FACT S, WE NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT (A) T HAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING TRANSACTIONS I N SHARE MARKET.. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD FIND ON LY THE DIVIDEND WARRANTS. THE CORRESPONDING SHARE CERTIFICATES COULD NOT BE FOUND . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS ALREADY SOLD THE RELEVANT SHARES. WITH REGARD T O THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND WARRANTS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE ONLY RECEI VE THE DIVIDEND WARRANTS IF THE BUYERS DO NOT GET THOSE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NAMES. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RECORD ON THIS ISSUE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DIVIDEND WARRANTS WAS NOT PROVED TO BE WRONG . THE AO DID NOT CARRY OUT IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 8 8 ANY ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE CORRESPONDING SHARE CERTIFICATES. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,20,000/- CONFIRMED BY LD C IT (A) WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO COVER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.4,80,580/-. FUR THER THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS NOT FROM OUT OF THE FUNDS ROTATED IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. UNDER THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT IN HUNDI OF JAYDEEP TEXTILES. THE ASSES SEES EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE BORROWER INTENDING TO AVAIL LOAN IS REQUIRED TO EXE CUTE A HUNDI PAPER AND THERE AFTER, HE WOULD TRY TO FIND THE LENDER. ACCORDINGL Y HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED HUNDI DID NO T TAKE PLACE. THE LD CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN TUNE WITH THE PREVAILING PRACTICE AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE DID INVEST HIS OWN MONEY ON THE STRENGTH O F THE IMPUGNED HUNDI PAPER. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF GIFT OF RS.1.00 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED RS .6.00 LAKHS AS GIFT. AS PER PARA 17(X) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THESE GIFTS. HENCE THE AO ADDED THE ABOVE SAID SUM S OF RS.1.00 LAKHS AND RS.6.00 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT (A) HAS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE AO. THE SAID OBSERVATION OF LD CIT (A) IS CONTRADI CTORY TO THAT STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LD CI T (A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN STATING SO. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THESE TWO ADDITION REQUIRE IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 9 9 RECONSIDERATION AT THE END OF LD CIT (A). IF THE A SSESSEE IS FILING/HAS FILED INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO GIFTS BEFORE L D CIT (A), THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE TH E ORDER OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS TWO ISSUES AND RESTORE THEM TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECT ION TO DISPOSE THEM AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,50,000/- PERTAINING TO VARIOUS ITEMS. THE LD CIT (A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAID ITEMS WHILE COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.97 TO 19.12.97, THOUGH HE HAS DISCU SSED THE DETAILS THERE OF IN PARA 16(XIII). BEFORE US, IT WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE DEPAR TMENT THAT THE AO HAS INCLUDED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF G IFT OF RS.6.00 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE SAME IN PARA 11 W HILE DISPOSING OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE WIFE OF THE AS SESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD CIT (A) WITH DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25 - 01 - 2 012. SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) (B.R. BASKARAN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) A.NO.35 & 76/AHD/2003 BLOCK P ERIOD 1-4-87 TO 19-12-1997 10 10 AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-III, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION - -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING / / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..