Shri Ashik Dhirajlal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 37/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1446 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69A; 208; 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A. NO: 37/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI ASHIK DHIRAJLAL SANGHVI A-14, TIRTHBHUMI APARTMENT, OPP. LAW GARDEN, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD-380006 V/S DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ATUPS9279F APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. M. MEHTA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANSHU PRAKASH, CIT/ D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 09 -05-201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 -05-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.12.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 1 ON LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 20,00 ,000/- FOR LOAN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALL ED FOR. THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER 2 ON LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 2,19, 614/- FOR ALLEGED OPENING UNEXPLAINED CASH BALANCE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE A CT WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 2,1 ON LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS TREATED CLOSING CASH BALANCE IN A.Y. 2007-2008 AS EXPLAINED CASH BALANCE HENCE THERE SUCH BALANCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION 2.2 ON LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT OPENING CASH BALANCE CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3 ON LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR RS 20,00,000 AND RS 2,19,614 U/S 69A OF THE ACT WHEN BOTH THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT AT ALL BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THESE ADDITIONS ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A OF T HE ACT HENCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. APART FROM THAT BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDIT IONAL LEGAL GROUND: 'IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143[3] OF THE ACT, NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING T HE SEARCH, IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED.' 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS EMANATES FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER: DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN FROM MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAI N WITH ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. A SUMMONS U/S 131 SUMMONS WAS ISSUED TO S HRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTION AN D IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME HE IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 APPEARED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 4TH MARCH, 2013 DURING WHICH HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF THE ST ATEMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA HAVING A SMALL PROVISION STORE EARNING RS. 10,000/- PER MONTH. THE RELEVANT EXCERPTS OF THE STATEMENT OF SH RI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA IS REPRODUCED BELOW: (TRANSLATED FROM GUJARATI): Q.3 WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES OF INCOME AND DO YOU FILE RETURN OF INCOME. IF YES GIVE THE DETAILS OF THE SAME. A-3. I HAVE A PROVISION STORE 'RAM KIRANA STORE' WHICH IS RUN BY ME SINCE 6-7 YEARS. I HAVE FILED RETURN TILL 2003-04, AFTER THAT I HAVE FILED RETURN IN 2010-11. MY MONTHLY INCOME IS RS.10,000/-, I ALSO RECEIVED 2-3 THOUSAND RUPEES BY WAY OF TUITION AND OTHER SOCIAL WORK. Q.6 SINCE HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN TRADING ON SHA RES, DO YOU HAVE ANY DEMAT ACCOUNT AND WHAT IS ITS PRESENT STATUS A-6 I WAS TRADING IN SHARES SINCE 2001, MY ACCO UNT WAS IN RELIGARE SECURITIES. AFTER F.Y.2005-06 I HAVE NOT CARRIED OUT ANY TRANSA CTIONS. Q-8 IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO VISH U ENTERPRISE OF RS. 4034000/-, KOKILABEN SANGHVI OF RS. 20,000/- AND SHRI ASHIK SA NGHVI OF RS. 60,00,00/- , THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN MAY BE EXPLAINED. A-8. I HAVE TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 60 LACS FROM SHRI DHIRUBAHI SANGHVI . A-11 I HAVE TAKEN SOME LOAN FROM DWARKESH RESTAU RANT AND WHATEVER TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE THAT SHALL BE SETTLED B Y MY BROTHER SHRI SAJJANKUMAR NANWAL. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY TRANSACTION WITH SANG HVI FINCAP. Q-12 HAVE YOU SOLD ANY SHARES TO SANGHVI FINC AP OR DWARKESH FINCAP. IF YES WHETHER ANY AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING? A-12 I HAVE SOLD A FEW SHARES OFF MARKET. HOWEVER , NO AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING. THE ACCOUNT IS SETTLED IMMEDIATELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER, VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A COPY OF THE ST ATEMENT AND REQUIRED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDITS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE SAME IS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER AND THE TAKER AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION SHOU LD BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE THAT THE IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 4 LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF RS. 8 LACS RECEIVED IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING THE LOAN GIVEN TORN SMT. KOKILABEN SANGHVI. FURTHER THE LOAN WAS O BTAINED BY A THIRD PARTY. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF ' ACCOUNT OF SHRI MUKESH VERMA WITH RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD AND BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI MUKESH VERMA WHICH IS' SURPRISING CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SHRI MUKESH VERMA WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS ANY DETAILS OF SHARE TRADING BUSINESS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF LOAN. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT SHRI MUKESH VERMA HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAS STOPPED TRADING IN SHARES FROM F.Y. 2005-06. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT AS PER THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI MUKESH VERMA, HE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT DETAILS DEGRADING THE SOURCE OF LOAN ALONGWITH COPIES OF BANK BOOKS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SANGHVI GROUP . HOWEVER HE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BANK ACCOUNT. NOR COULD HE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE BEING FROM HIS INCOME. IN FACT HE HAS STATED THAT THE SOURCE WAS L OAN GIVEN BY SHRI DHIRAJLAL SANGHVI. HENCE, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THE COPIES OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS PURPORTEDLY HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR VERMA OF WHICH HE IS NOT AWARE OF ESTABLISHES THE FACT TH AT THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE DEMAT ACCOUNT WAS NOT OPERATED BY SHRI MUKESH VERMA . THUS THE VERACITY OF CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF LOAN BEING SHARE TRANSACTION IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AS THE LENDER HAS DENIED ANY KNOWLEDG E OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT BY PROVIDIN G PAN, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS AND COPY OF RETURN FILED, HE HAS DI SCHARGED HIS ONUS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. V ERMA DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR CONCERNED, THEREFORE THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE RETURN IS NOT CORRECT. AS REGARDS ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER AND CREDITOR, IT IS OBSER VED THAT WHEN SOMEBODY IS NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THEN THERE IS NO SANCTITY OF HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LENDER IS NOT AWARE OF THE AMOUNT HE HAS GIVEN, THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AND THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE AMO UNT GIVEN. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON THE SAID LOAN. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA IS EARNING RS. 10,000/- TO 12, 000/- P.M. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA HAS NO CREDI TWORTHINESS OF GIVING SUCH HUGE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN SINCE A.YRS. 2003-04 TO A. Y. 2009-10. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V.COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 5 [1995] 214 ITR 801 HAS' HELD THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE; AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AS ENUNCIA TED IN 214 ITR 801 (SC) IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT GENUINE AS THE LENDER DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GIVE SUCH A HU GE LOAN. THUS THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE LENDER IS A MAN OF MEANS TO LEND SUCH HUGE LOAN AND THAT TOO WITHOUT TAKING ANY INTEREST. VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013, THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVEN A COPY OF THE STATEMENT AND REQUIRED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSA CTION IS GENUINE SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE SAME IS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER AND THE TAKER A ND HENCE THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE HAS F URTHER CONTENDED THAT BY PROVIDING PAN, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT S AND COPY OF RETURN FILED, HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR CONCERNED, THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE RETURN IS NOT CORRECT. AS REGARDS ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER AND CREDITOR, IT IS OBSERVED THAT WHEN SOMEBODY IS NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THEN THERE IS NO SANCTITY OF HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER IN THIS CASE SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE TRANSACTION PURPORT ED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY HIM. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS B EEN CARRIED OUT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO BE NOTED THA T TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL DOES NOT MAKE A TRANSACTION SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT MAKE A NON-GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: CIT V/S PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD 208 ITR 465 CITV/S UNITED COMMERCIAL 85 INDUSTRIAL CO. P LTD (CAL) 187 ITR 596 MANGILAL JANI V/S ITO(MAD) 315 ITR 105 IT HAS BEEN HELD LONG BACK BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHANKAR INDUSTRIES V/S CIT 114 ITR 689, THAT THE AS SESSEE MUST PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE MONEY AND IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 6 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ONLY THEN THE BURDE N SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE COURTS INCLUDING THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE VIEW AND HAVE HELD THAT ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS SHOULD BE SATISFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND PARTICULARLY THE . CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER, WHEN THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER WAS RECORD ED AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE; THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO SHOW THAT SHRI MUKESHKUMAR K. VERMA IS AM MAN OF MEANS WHO CAN LEN D SUCH AN AMOUNT. IN HIS SUBMISSION DATEDL4.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM INCLUDING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS INVOLVED. HEREIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE ITSELF IS DOUBTFUL T HE OTHER JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE SINCE IN THESE JUDGEMENTS IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONUS SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT ONCE TH E ASSESSEE DISCHARGES HIS BURDEN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DI SCHARGED HIS BURDEN AND HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE LENDER. HENCE, RS. 20,00,000/- SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI MUKESHKU MAR K. VERMA IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T.ACT A ND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND THEREBY HA S CONCEALED HIS INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) 6F THE ACT ARE IN ITIATED SEPARATELY. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST ST ATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 5. NOW BY WAY OF SECOND APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHE D US. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IMPUGNED ORDER AND HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF SANGHVI GROUP ON 09.03.2011. AND THEREAFTER A NOTIC E U/S. 153A WAS ISSUED ON IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 7 21.08.2012 AND ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 0 8.10.2012 IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,12 ,290/-. 7. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.20,00,000/- FROM SHRI MUKESH VERMA IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, STATEMENT OF SHRI MUKESH VER MA WAS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AND HE STATED THAT HE OWNS A SMALL PROVISIO N STORE AND ERNING @ 10,000/- TO 12,000/- PER MONTH AND AS PER REVENUE HE DID NOT SUFFICIENT INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO LEND HUGE SUM TO TH E VARIOUS PERSONS OF SANGHVI GROUP. 8. LD. A.R. INSISTED OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND SHOULD BE DEALT FIRST, HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT IN COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY INCRIM INATING DOCUMENT, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S. 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, LD. A.R. CITED A JUDGMEN T OF SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 380 ITR 529 (GUJ.) OF HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE P ERSON SEARCHED TAKES PLACE. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERI AL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME O R PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. THUS, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NO. 37/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 8 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 - 05- 2019 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 27/05/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD