Shri Shailesh Kantilal Chokshi, Baroda. V. The Dy. CIT., Cent. Circle-1, Baroda.

ITSSA 76/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7579 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D P GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS) NO.76 / AHD/2004 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.89 TO 14.12.99) SHRI SHAILESH KANTILAL CHOKSHI, KARODIA POLE, NEAR GHANDIALI POLE, M G ROAD, MADVI, BARODA-390001 VS. DCIT, CC-1, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S N SOPARKAR, SR.ADV RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D P GUPTA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.04.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A)- IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.12.2003 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FORM 01.04.1989 TO 14.12.1989. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING; (A) THAT THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AS W ORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.7,41,42,168/- ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURES AL, A2, A3 AND RS.57,09,885/- IS CORRECT. (B) THAT THE SALES OF RS. 3,04,560/- MADE ON 1 3-12-2001 WAS UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. (C) THAT THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF 914.815 GMS IN CLOSING STOCK WHICH WAS SOLD OUT OF THE BOOKS. I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 2 (D) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TOTAL ALLEGED UNAC COUNTED TURNOVER AT RS. 8,05,45,451/- AS WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. (E) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE G.P.RATE AT 0.34% AND F URTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED PROFIT OF RS.2,73,855/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. (F) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS INITIAL INVESTM ENT MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT AND FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYING THE OPERATI NG CYCLE OF STOCK HOLDING AT 1.96 DAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIAL INV ESTMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN WORKING OUT THE UNACCOUNTED I NCOME AT RS.6,11,896/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. 2.1 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THESE GROU NDS ARE OF ACADEMIC INTEREST BECAUSE EFFECTIVE ADDITION MADE IS FOR DEB TORS WHICH IS BEING DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO.2. ACCOR DINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED AS OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 3. GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 ARE AS UNDER: (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS UNACCOUNTED DEBTORS OF RS.33,58,118/- WHICH REPRESE NTED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND THEREBY FURTHER ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,58,118/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. (3)IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS ADDITION OF RS.23,58,1187 - AS ABOVE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) BE DELETED. 3.1 BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE ARE NOTED BY L D. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.9 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS D ISPUTED AN ACTION OF WORKING OUT THE TOTAL DEBTORS AT RS.38,09,233/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HA WORKED OUT TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AT RS.38,09,233/- BASED ON SEIZED ANNEXURE A -1, A-2, A-3, A-8 & A-10. THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN D ETAIL IN HIS ORDER. (REFER TO PAGES 4 TO 15 OF HIS ORDER). IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME SEIZED MATERIAL, THE APPELLANT HA S DISCLOSED OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AT RS.10,00,000/- IN HIS BOOK R ETURN. THE A.O., THUS, REDUCED RS.10 LACS, FROM THE TOTAL DEBTORS OF RS.38,09,233/- AND ADDED RS.28,09,233/- TO ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE OF RS.4,51,115/- I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 3 AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.23,58,118/-. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE PART ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH D ECISION ON THE BASIS OF PEAK OF DEBIT AND CREDIT BALANCE OF UNACCOUNTED TRA NSACTIONS IN THE DIARY. 3.3 LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE WORKING OF THE DEBTORS HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E A.O. AT RS.38,09,233/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS MARKED AS A-1,. A-2, A-3, A- 8 AND A-10. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOS ED ONLY RS.10 LACS AND, THEREFORE, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.28,09,233/-. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WORKING OF DEBTORS IS NOT CORRECT. VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE REITERATED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND HE HAS OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FORM THE A.O. AND THEREAFTER, ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE.. THE DIRECTIONS IN THIS REGARD IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) IS VERY SKETCHY AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS DIRECTION IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE MATTER CANNOT BE DECIDED AT TRIBUNAL LEVEL AND HENC E, WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTE SHOULD GO BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION . THE A.O. SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY PEAK DEBIT BALANCE OUT OF ALL DEBIT AND CR EDIT BALANCES OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS IN THE DIARY SHOULD BE ADD ED AND IF CREDIT TRANSACTION IS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF DEBIT TRANSACTI ON, NETTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND IN THIS MANNER, NET PEAK DEBIT BALANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AND ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THIS AMOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, SET AIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE T HE MATTER BACK TO THE I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 4 FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. HE SHOULD P ASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. GROUND NO.4 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. GROUND NO.5 IS AS UNDER: (5)THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT VARIOUS ITEMS OF GOLD WEIGHING 698.200 VALUED AT RS.3,29,264/- IS THE UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.3,29,264/-. 5.1 BRIEF FACTS REGARDING HIS ISSUE TILL THE ASSESS MENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODU CED BELOW: 5. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED AN ADDITION OF RS.3,29,264/-. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISC USSED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 7 OF THIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 'DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN ADDITION TO GOLD BI SCUITS STOCK, STOCK OF OTHER ITEMS OF GOLD OTHER THAN THOSE MENTI ONED AT SR. NO. 1 & 2 (GOLD BARS) WERE FOUND AS PER ANNEXURE JF TO PA NCHNAMA. THESE WERE OF WEIGHT 698.200 GMS. AND OF VALUE RS.3 ,29,264/-. THESE ARE NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS CLAIMED IN POST SEARCH INQUIRY SAME DO NOT PERTAIN TO BUSINESS STOCK OF ANY OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE GROUP. DURING T HE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THES E ARE ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO LADY MEMBERS OF FAMILY AND O RNAMENTS RECEIVED FOR REPAIRS. THIS ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE IS UNSATISFACTORY AS IN S TATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ANY LADY MEMBE R HAD STATED THAT THEIR ORNAMENTS WERE LYING AT BUSINESS PREMISE S. THUS, THIS CLAIM IS REJECTED. FURTHER NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF CLAIM THAT SOME THAT SOME OF THESE ORNAMENTS WERE BELONGING TO CUSTOMERS EITHER IN FORM OF ANY RECEIPT BOOK ETC. OR CONFIRMA TION OF CUSTOMER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IS REJE CTED AND SAME IS TREATED TO BE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ARTICL ES OF I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 5 RS.3,29,264/-. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.3,29,2641 - IS BEING MADE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT IS INITIATED. 5.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSESSE E IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.3 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY AND THEREFORE, BENEFI T SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITH REGARD TO THEIR JEWELLERY HOLDING TO THE EXTEN T OF 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS R ATANLAL VYAPARILAL JAIN AS REPORTED IN 339 ITR 351. 5.4 LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE THE ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO THE LADIES MEM BERS OF THE FAMILY AND THE ORNAMENTS RECEIVED FOR REPAIRS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO LADY MEMBER HAD STATED THAT HE R ORNAMENTS ARE LYING IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND ON THIS BASIS, THIS CL AIM WAS REJECTED. HE ALSO NOTED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN RE SPECT OF THIS CLAIM THAT SOME ORNAMENTS WERE BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMERS AND NO RECEIPT BOOK ETC. OR CONFIRMATION OF CUSTOMERS WAS PRODUCED . BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE US ALSO, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODU CED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION. THIS IS ALSO VERY UNNATURAL CLAIM THAT PERSONAL ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO THE LADIES WERE LYING AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES. UNDER THESE I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 6 FACTS, NOW, WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDGMEN T CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF RATANLAL VY APARILAL JAIN (SUPRA):- 5.6 FROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE, JEWELLERY OF 1632.8 GMS WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994, HAVING REGARD TO THE SEIZE OF FAMILY, O RNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS REA SONABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE JEWELLERY WAS NOT SEIZED FROM THE RESIDEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS SEIZED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE WHEREAS THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AS WELL AS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE JEWELLERY IN DISPUTE WAS SEIZ ED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE A .O. ON PAGE 14-15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. ON P AGE 18 PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, G OLD BISCUITS AND OTHER ITEMS OF GOLD OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED AT SL. NO. 1 & 2 (GOLD BARS) WERE FOUND AS PER ANNEXURE JF-1 TO PANCHNAMA . HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE WEIGHT WAS 698.200 GMS VALUING RS.3,29,264/-. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT IT IS STATED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT IN THE CASE OF SEARCH, NO LADY MEMBER HAS STATED THAT HER ORNAM ENTS ARE LYING IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES. THIS IS ALSO NOT COMING OUT FOR M THE RECORD THAT NO JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSES SEE WHICH WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SEARCH. IN THE BRIEF FACTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON PAGE 13, IT IS SUBMITTED ON THIS GROUND THAT JEWELL ERY WEIGHING 453.800 GMS WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND INCLU DING JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF 698.200 GMS, TOTAL JEWE LLERY FOUND IS ONLY 1152 GMS AND THERE ARE THREE LADY MEMBERS OUT OF WH ICH ONE WAS MARRIED I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 7 IN 1978 AND THE OTHER TWO WERE MARRIED IN 1994 AND HENCE, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND IS WITHIN THE LIMITS SPECIFIED VIDE CIRCULAR NO.1916 DATED 11.5.1994. FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, I T IS NOT COMING OUT AS TO WHAT WAS THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND INCLUDING RES IDENCE AND BUSINESS PREMISES EXCLUDING GOLD BARS AND GOLD BISCUITS ETC. AND, THEREFORE, WE FEEL THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS A SPECT THAT JEWELLERY OF LADY FAMILY MEMBERS WERE LYING AT THE BUSINESS PREM ISES, BUT IF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND OTHER THAN GOLD BARS AND GOLD BISCU ITS AT THE RESIDENCE AND THE BUSINESS PREMISES IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PR OVIDED IN THE BOARDS CIRCULAR MENTIONED ABOVE THEN THE JEWELLERY FOUND S HOULD BE ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED. SINCE THE FACTS ON THIS ASPECT ARE NOT CLEAR, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER FINDING OUT THE FACTUAL POSI TION IN THIS REGARD REGARDING THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND IN ADDITION TO GOLD BARS AND GOLD BISCUITS ETC. AT THE RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS PREMISE S AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT CITED BY HE LD. A.R. RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RATANLAL VYAPARILAL JA IN (SUPRA). THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO.6 IS AS UNDER: (6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.2,39,028/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE BANK DEPOSITS. 6.1 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT DIFFERENT PEAK DATES ARE CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. FOR WORKING OUT THE PEAK AMO UNT LYING IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 20 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE PEAK DATE IS NOTED BY THE A.O. AS 17.12 .1994 FOR ACCOUNT OF GOPI CHOKSHI ACCOUNT WITH SWAMI NARAYAN COOPERATIVE BANK SAVING ACCOUNT AND PEAK DATE 20.12.1994 IS CONSIDERED FOR ACCOUNT OF SK I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 8 CHOKSHI IN THE SAME BANK. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR ONE RD BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA RECURRING DEPOSIT AND TW O RD ACCOUNT WITH SHREE COOPERATIVE BANK, NO PEAK DATE HAS BEEN STATE D BY THE A.O. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SAME PEAK DATE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 6.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THOUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIZE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS IS ADMITTED POSITION OF FACTS THAT ALL TH ESE FIVE ACCOUNTS ARE UNACCOUNTED BANK ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, FOR BALANCE LY ING IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS, ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE. BUT NOW, THE DI SPUTE IS ONLY WHAT IS THE PEAK AMOUNT FOR WHICH, ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT PEAK AMOUNT OF EACH BANK ACCOUNT SEPARAT ELY AND PEAK DATE IS DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSEE MAY GET SOME BENEFIT IF IT IS SEEN THAT AFTER THE PEAK DATE OF ONE BANK ACCOUNT, THERE IS SOME WITHDR AWAL FROM THAT BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE PEAK DATE OF 2 ND BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THIS ASPECT WAS NEVER CONSIDE RED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUBMIT THE WORKING OF THE PEAK OF A LL THESE BANK ACCOUNTS ON A COMMON DATE AND ALSO SEPARATELY FOR EACH BANK ACCOUNT AND IF THERE IS WITHDRAWAL FROM A BANK ACCOUNT, AFTER THE PEAK D ATE OF SUCH PARTICULAR BANK ACCOUNT, THEN ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT S UCH WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN SOME OTHER BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE PEAK DATE OF SUCH OTHER BANK ACCOUNT. IF THE A SSESSEE CANNOT ESTABLISH THIS ASPECT THEN, THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING SEPARATE PEAK OF EACH BANK ACCOUNT. THE A.O. SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER I.T.A.NO.76 /AHD/2004 9 ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.7 WAS NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY REJE CTED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. GROUND NO.8 IS REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/ S 158 BFA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HE NCE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 10. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 16/4 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18/4.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER.