The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Mansi Builders Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 77/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0885 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIBHA BHALLA
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Peak credit; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 131

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO.314, 315, 316 AND 317/AHD/2011 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-2003 TO 2005-2006 SHRI VIKASH A. SHAH 210, ANAL FLATS NR.VIJAY CHAR RASTA NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. PAN : APWPS 4465 G VS DCIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. IT(SS)A NO.77 AND 78/AHD/2012 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. VS MAN S I BUILDERS LTD. VIKAS CHAMBERS NR.DADA SAHEB NA PAGLA NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAALM 0004 E %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA REVENUE BY : SMT.VIBHA BHALLA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26/08/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/09/2015 )*/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE LD.CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD HAS DECIDED SIX APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VIKASH A. SHAH PERTAINING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06 BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER DATED 2 0.1.2011. THE SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 2 ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN AL L THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, BUT, WE HAVE HEARD APPEALS OF THE ASSTT.YEAR S 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MANSI BUILDERS, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 1999-2000 TO 2001-02, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 VIDE ORDE R DATED 30.11.2011. OUT OF THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD AP PEALS FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. SINCE ALL THESE AP PEALS ARE INTER- CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER, THEREFORE, WE HEARD TOGETH ER AND DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY THIS COMMON ORDER . 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HE CASE OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH, IT(SS)A.NO.314/AHD/2011 (ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03). 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALONG WITH SUB- GROUNDS. HE PLEADED THAT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY H IM WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,34,52,484/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND . 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SEARCH UNDE R SECTION 132(2) WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 9.2.200 5. IN ORDER TO GIVE LOGICAL END TO THE PROCEEDING, A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 153A(A) WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 14.7.2005 WHICH WAS DUL Y SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICES ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT COMPLIED WITH. HOWEVER, HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 .12.2006. THE AO HAS ALREADY SET THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN MOTIO N BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1). AFTER FILING THE RETU RN, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ALSO ON 26.12.2006. TH E LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,34,52,484/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE READS AS UN DER: SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 3 ' 3. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PAGE NO.1 I.E. MOU DTD.16 .5.01, WITH PRAVIN K. PATEL. AS PER THE MOU, THE ASSESSEE HAS T O GIVE 3675 SQ.YD. OF LAND AT JASPUR TO PRAVIN K. PATEL AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,24,000/- @ RS.333 PER SQ.YD. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF. SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH (AN S.45) IT IS NOTICED THAT TOTAL LAND HOLDING AT VILLAGE JASPUR I S 67 VIGHA. OUT OF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 49 VIGHA TO ABUBH AI DESAI AND ASHWIN BHANDARI. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID RECEIPT TO THE DEPARTMENT, A SHOW-CAUSE DTD.20.12.0 6 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE, CONTENTS OF THE SAME AR E AS UNDER: 1. PLEASE REFER TO PAGE NO.1 OF A/78, WHICH IS M OU DATED 16.05.01 WITH PRAVIN KESHUBHAI PATEL. ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE SAID MOU IT IS NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE 3675 S O. YDS. AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF 12,24,000/- @ 333 PER SQ. YARD (IN CHITVAN). PLEASE ALSO REFER YOUR ANSWER NO.45 WHERE IN YOU HAVE STATED THAT I HAVE PURCHASED 67 VIGHA OF LAND AT VILLAGE JASPUR ON WHICH ABHIYARAN WAS LAUNCHED. THE REAFTER 22 VIGHA OF LAND SOLD TO ABHTTBHAI DESAI AND 25-27 VIGHA LAND WAS SOLD TO ASHWIN BHANDARI AND REMAINING LAND IS WITH ME. HE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT HE AGREED TO ALLOT THE P LOTS AS WRITTEN IN THE MOU TO ASHWIN BHANDARI WHO HAS CHANG ED THE NAME OF SCHEME TO CHITVAN. IN THIS REGARD YOU A RE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PURCHASE PRICE OF TOTAL LAND OF RS.6,34,52,484/- (67 VIGHA = 19054 8 SQ. YDS. X 333) SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL INCOM E AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR A. X.2002-03. SIMILARLY, YOU ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE THAT WHY THE SALE VALUE OF 49 VIGHA OF LAND OF RS.4,64,05,548/- (@ 333 PER SQ. YD S.) SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS YOUR UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT/INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION. IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS SUBM ISSION VIDE LETTER DTD.26.12.06, STATING THAT - 'PAGE NO.L OF A/78, WHICH IS MOU DTD 16.5.01 WITH P RVIN KESHUBHAI PATEL TO GIVE 3675 SQ.YDS. AGAINST CONSID ERATION RS.12,24,000/- @ 333 PER SQ. YDS. (IN CHITVAN). THE SAME IS NOT ARISE, THE ANSWER NO.45 AND ONWARDS MENTIONED I N YOUR SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, IT IS PRIOR TO '97, IT IS NOT CA ME IN PURVIEW OF BLOCK PERIODS: FURTHER IT IS TIME BARRED . SO YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE ALSO DROP THE SAME AND OBLI GE. ABOVE PROPERTY ALREADY DISCLOSED IN VDIS: SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 4 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN C ONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE ON THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS: A) IT IS GATHERED FROM THE ENQUIRY THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AT JASPUR IN THE A.Y.1997-98 WHI CH WAS DECLARED IN VDIS '97 AS STATED BY SHRI VIKAS A. SHA H. BUT NO PROOF REGARDING THE AMOUNT OFFERED AGAINST SAID LAN D IS NOT FILED. THEREFORE, NO CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN FOR THE PU RCHASE PRICE OF THE SAID LAND. B) THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED IN HIS ANSWER NO.45 THAT OUT OF TOTAL LAND OF 67 VIGHA, 49 VIGHA WAS SO LD TO ABUBHAI DESAI AND ASHWIN BHANDARI. BUT NO DETAIL RE GARDING RATE OF THE LAND SOLD AND TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED AGA INST THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS FURNISHED. SIMILARLY, IT IS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BALANCE LAND OF 18 VIGHA IS NO T SOLD AND STILL LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT BALANCE LAND HAS ALSO BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEA R. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS REGARDING S ALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND SOLD, SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATED. MOREOVER, PREVAILING PRACTICE OF ON-MONEY IS ALSO R EQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED, WHILE ESTIMATING THE PRICE OF LAN D. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE MOU INVENTORISED A S PAGE 1 OF A-78, RATE OF LAND IS CLEARLY MENTIONED. ACCORDI NGLY, THAT IS TREATED AS RATE OF TOTAL LAND OF 67 VIGHA SOLD D URING THE YEAR, C) IN THE CASE OF PRANAV CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT. HON 'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI B BENCH HAS HELD THAT STATEMENT U/S. 1 32(4) IS THE BEST EVIDENCE AGAINST A PERSON MAKING IT. HE RE IN THE INSTANT CASE, SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH HAS HIMSELF ADMITT ED IN ANSWER NO.45 OF HIS STATEMENT THAT HE HAS SOLD 49 V IGHA OF LAND AT VILLAGE JASPUR. SINCE NO PROOF REGARDING LA ND HOLDING HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE AMPLE OPPORT UNITY GIVEN, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT TOTAL LAND O F 67 VIGHA AT JASPUR HAS BEEN SOLD OUT AND RATE OF THE LAND IS @ RS.333 PER SQ.YD. CONSIDERING THE SAME RATE OF LAND, TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION DERIVED FROM SALE OF LAND AT JASPUR C OMES TO RS.6,34,52.484/- (67 VIGHA = 190548 SQ.YD. X 333). AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DETAIL REGARDING AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN VDIS TOWARDS LAND AT JASPUR VILLAGE, T HE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS NIL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION MADE, TOTAL SALE CO NSIDERATION AS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FRO M THE CUSTODY SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 5 OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH AT RS.6,34,52,484/-. AS THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID CONSIDERATION TO THE DEPARTM ENT, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS RECEIPT DERIVED FROM THE TRADI NG OF LAND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,34,52,484 /- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. [ADDITION OF RS.6,34,52,484/-] 5. THE LD.AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 28. 12.2006. HE DETERMINED TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,4 8,57,894/-. 6. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECID ED THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2000-01 TO 2005-06 BY WAY OF A COMMON OR DER. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REPRODUCED THE YEAR-WISE TO TAL OF CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES IN THE CASH REPORT. SUCH DETAILS ARE BEING REPRODUCED STARTING FROM PAGE NO.7 TO PAGE NO.118. AFTER REPR ODUCTION OF THESE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 9. IN ALL THESE YEARS, THE AO COMPUTED THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT O THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED BY HIM AFTER CONSIDERING THE HIGHER OF THE TOTAL OF THE DEBITS OR THE TOTAL OF THE CREDITS. HOWEVER, THE CO NTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT ONLY THE PEAK CAN BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY M E IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18/1/2011. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY ME THAT THE PEAK THEORY CANNOT BE APPL IED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO, IT IS HELD THAT IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PEAK THEORY CANNOT BE APPLIED. HO WEVER, THE AO WOULD VERIFY FOR THE TOTALLING ERROR AND SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECT FIGURE OF TOTAL. IN PRINCIPLE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS UPHELD. IN OTHER W ORDS, THE GROUND RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED INCOME / UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT 10. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN UPHELD BY ME IN A.Y. 1999-2000 B ECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF ITS LAND SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 6 HOLDING SUCH AS 7/12 STATEMENT, DETAILS OF CROPS GR OWN AND SOLD ETC. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR, THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD IN THESE YEARS. 11. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENSES, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY M E THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FURNISHING OF THE DETAIL S BEFORE THE AO SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY RS.50,000/-. SINCE THE FACTS ARE COMMON, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 THE AO IS DIRE CTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO ONLY RS.50 ,000/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,15,560/-; IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 2002 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO RESTRICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 40,000/- EACH OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,21,330/- AND RS.4,01,160/- RES PECTIVELY. 7. THE LD.COUSNEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND ABOUT THE ADDITION OF RS.6,34,52,484/-. BUT, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAS NOWHERE MADE A MENTION OF THIS GROUND. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THIS GROUND ARE NOT DISCUSSED BY THE LD.FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE DISCUSSION IS ON ALTOGETHE R DIFFERENT ISSUES WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN OTHER YEARS. THE LD.DR, ON T HE OTHER HAND, WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. FROM PERUSAL OF THE FINDING RECO RDED BY THE AO (EXTRACTED SUPRA), TWO-THREE ISSUES EMERGE OUT VIZ. (I) THE LD.AO HAS ASSUMED THE TRANSFER OF LAND ON THE BASIS OF MOU DA TED 16.5.2001, WHETHER THIS LAND WAS A STOCK-IN-TRADE OR IT WAS AN INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ? THE LD.AO HAS NOT ASCERTAINED. (B) WHE THER IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF S ECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS TAKEN PLACE EVEN BY AN EXECUTION OF MOU ? IN OTHER WORDS, THE LD.AO HAS NOT ASCERTAINED WHETHER TRANSFER OF THIS LAND HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE OR NOT. HE HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOLD THIS LAND AND RECEIVED AN A MOUNT OF RS.6,34,52,484/-. WHETHER IT WAS A REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 7 ASSESSEE OR A CAPITAL GAIN OUGHT TO BE COMPUTED ? ALL THESE QUESTIONS REMAINED UNANSWERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE L D.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT TOUCHED THE ISSUE AT ALL AND CONF IRMED THE HUGE ADDITION OF MORE THAN RUPEES SIX CRORES IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9. SIMILARLY, OTHER TWO ISSUES WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.8,27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AND RS.4,01,160/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. AL L THESE ISSUES ARE REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAIN TO BE ADJUDICATED, HENCE, ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY U S WILL NOT IMPAIR AND INJURE THE CASE OF THE AO, AND WILL NOT CAUSE PREJU DICE TO THE DEFENCE/ EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY SHALL ADJUDICATE THESE ISSUES AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A.NO.315/AHD/2011 10. IN THIS YEAR AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2006. AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.1 2.2006. THE LD.AO HAS DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AT RS.64,49,950/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.75, 030/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A): SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 8 1) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S. 153A (B) R.W.S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 63,74,919/- (I.E.RS. 48,53,040/- AND RS. 15,21,879/-) ON THE AL LEGED GROUND OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT/EXPENSES AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BA D IN LAW. , 2) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING RS. 3,10,00 0, RS.8,22,800 AND RS. 1,57,900/- ON THE ALLEGED GROUN D OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. H OWEVER, SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 12, 90,700/- IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 4) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 5) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN THE BODY OF ORDER FAR A WAY FROM TRUTH. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR TO T OTALLY DELETE THE UNWANTED ADDITION AND QUASH THE ORDER. 11. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, WE HAVE EXTRACTED FINDING OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS COMMON FO R ALL THESE YEARS. APART FROM THAT COMMON FINDING, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS M ADE A MENTION OF DATES OF HEARING AND QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS MADE BY T HE AO. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH ANY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EXTRACTED SUPRA. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RESTORE ALL TH ESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 9 IT(SS)A.NO.316/AHD/2011 12. IN ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED H IS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2006, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 153A. HE DECLARED TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.75,030/-. AS MENTION ED EARLIER IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03, THE AO HAS ALREADY SET THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN MOTION BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN WELL IN TIME. HE PASS ED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 28.12.2006. HE DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.29,91,23,381/-. THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.29,90,48,351/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE. HE MADE REFERENCE OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND COMPILED THE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM AT PAGE NO.51 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. MAJOR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE ON ACCOUNT OF PAGE NO.111 OF ANNEXURE A/ 241 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED O N THIS ISSUE BY THE AO AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON VERIFICATION OF PAGE 111 OF A-241 IT IS N OTICED THAT YOU HAVE SOLD FINAL PLOT AT VILLAGE VASNA ADMEASURING 2 1190 SQ. YDS. @ RS.5,600/- PER SO. YDS. TOTAL OF WHICH COMES TO RS.11,86,64,000/-, WHICH IS ALSO MENTIONED ON LEFT AIDE OF SAID PAPER. AGAINST WHICH YOU HAVE SHOWN VARIOUS EXPENSE S OF RS.8,79,50,000/- -, WHICH INCLUDES RS.1,25,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF 'V' WHICH APPEARS TO BE VIKAS A. SHAH. THIS FACT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE SEIZED PAPER PAGE NO.4 OF A-174 ON WHICH DETAILS OF CASH OF RS.1,25,00,000/- RECEIVED BY VIK AS A. SHAH IS NOTED. YOU HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME VIDE YOUR A NSWER NO.67 RECORDED U/S. 131(1A) OF THE ACT ON 09.03.2005 WHER EIN YOU HAVE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT 'PAGE NO.4 OF ANNEXURE A-174 CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF CASH OF RS.1,25,00,000/-. RECEIVED F ROM UMANG JHAKKAR OF DHARAMDEV BUILDERS TOWARDS SALE OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.188 & 189 OF VILLAGE VASNA. FURTHER, ON VERIFICA TION OF THE SAID PAPER IT IS OBSERVED THAT ONLY EXPENSES OF RS.60,00 ,000/- (4000000 TO DOCTOR AND RS.20,00,000 TO NARANBHAI A DVOCATE) ARE APPEARED -TO BE RELATED TO THE LAND AT SURVEY N O.188 & 189 OF VASNA. MOREOVER, YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED PURCHASE TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 10 THAT WHY THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.11,86,64,000/- SHO ULD NOT BE ADDED IN YEAR TOTAL INCOME AS UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS RECEIPT FOR THE A.Y.2O04-05. 2. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PAGE ND.LLL OF A-241 IT IS OBSERVED THAT TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.8.79.59.OOO/- ARE NOTED ON LEFT SIDE OF SEIZED PAPER. OAT OF THAT RS.1,25,00,000/- IF SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED BY YOU AND KS.7.54,00,000/- ARE SHOWN TO BE RECEIVE D/RECEIVABLE BY OTHER PERSONS LIKE, N.H. SAHEB, NARANBHAI, DOCTO R, AMRISH KOKA, JK SHAH, SHAITESH JHAKUR AND SIDDHARTH). FURT HER, IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU HAD STATED THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.8,79,00.000/-RS.3.04,00,000/- HAS NOT YET BEEN P AID. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ARE REQUI RED TO SHOW CAUSE THAT WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,00,000/- (7,54 ,00,000 - 3,04,00,000) SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS YOUR UNACC OUNTED INVESTMENT/EXPENSES FOR A. Y. 2004-05. IN RESPONSE TO THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS SUBMISSI ON VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2006 STATING THAT - REGARDING PAGE NO. 111 OF A-241 I HAVE SOLD FINAL P LOT AT VILLAGE VASNA ADMEASURING 21190 SQ. YRDS. @ 5,600/-PER SQ. YARDS. TOTAL OF-WH ICH COMES TO RS.11,86,64,000/-WHICH IS MENTIONED ON LEFT SIDE OF SAID PAPER. OUT OF THE ABOVE TOTAL AMOUNT RS. 1,25,00,000/- REC EIVED BY ME. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED BY ME VIDE ANS. 67 OF STATEME NT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT ON 09.03.2005. WHEREIN IT IS CA TEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT PAGE NO. 4 OF ANNEXURE A-174 CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF CASH OF RS.1,25,00,000/- RECEIVED FORM SHRI UMANG T HAKKAR OF DHARAMDEV BUILDERS TOWARDS SALE OF LAND AT SURVEY N O. 188 & 190 OF VILLAGE VASNA. YOUR HONOUR HAS MENTIONED THAT ON LY EXPENSES OF RS.60,00,000 (RS. 4000,000/- TO DOCTOR(**) ARID RS. 20,00,0007- TO NARANBHAI ADVOCATE) ARE APPEARED TO THE RELATED TO LAND SURVEY NO. 188, 189 OF VASNA. IT IS QUITE W RONG, THE DETAILS OF TOTAL PAYMENT RECEIVED AND EXPENSES ARE AS UNDER:' RS.40,00,000/- LAND OWNER (AKSHAY HIRALAL PATEL AN D AJAY HIRALAL PATEL) RS.24 LACS BY DRAFT &RS.L6 LACS BY CASH) (**) RS.20,00,000/- NARANBHAI R. PATEL, ADVOCATE RS. 1,00,00,000/-GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION (RS.25 LACS GIVEN) RS.1,87,00,000/- DHARMESH (OUT OF RS.1.87CRO RE DHARMESH RECEIVED RS.35 LACS SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 11 TOWARDS THE SAID PAYMENT) RS.48,00,000/- MANGAIJI LALJI THAKORE (* *) [THEY ARE THE SON OF DOCTOR HIRALAL PATCH TILL DATE TOTAL PAYMENT RECEIVED RS. 3,68.00,000/-. OUT OF RS.1,25,00,000/- IS RECEIVED BY ME AGAINST SALE OF LAND. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,43,00,000/- IS PAID AS ABOVE TOWARD S CLEARING THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE AMOUNT OFRS.8,18,64,000/- (RS .L18664000 .36800,000) IS YET TO BE RECEIVED. SO THE QUESTION OF ADDITION OF RS.11,86,64.000/- DOES NOT ARISE. THIS PROPERTY BEL ONGS TO MANSI BUILDERS LTD. AND ALL MONEY GIVEN TO LANDLORD BY MA NSI BUILDER'S ETC. 13. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S. 153A (B) R.W.S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 29,90,48,351/- ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT/EXPENSES AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. , 2) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING RS.226,271, 318/- ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. HOWEVER, SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED INC OME OF RS. 226,271,318/- IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 4) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 5) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT RAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN THE BODY OF ORDER FAR A WAY FROM SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 12 TRUTH. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR TO T OTALLY DELETE THE UNWANTED ADDITION AND QUASH THE ORDER. 14. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS N OT TOUCHED ANY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO NARRAT ION OF SEIZED MATERIAL BEARING NO.111 OF A/241 BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE EXTRACTED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THI S YEAR ALSO AND RESTORE ALL THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. IT(SS)A.NO.317/AHD/2011 15. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT F ILED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 1 39(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD.AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 10.4.2006 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETUR N, NOR ANYONE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 8,500/-. THE LD.AO DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.69,29,3 00/-. THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE AO READS AS UNDER: SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN 28,500 ADD: 1) UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT AS PER PARA-3 ABOVE RS.13,60,00 2) UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT AS PER PARA-4 ABOVE RS.25,00,000 3) UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT AS PER PARA-5 ABOVE RS.20,00,000 4) AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DISCUSSED IN PARA-7 ABOVE RS.8,90,800 5) INTEREST EXPENSES AS DISCUSSED IN RS.1,50,000 SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 13 PARA-8 ABOVE TOTAL INCOME RS.69,29,300 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ALL THESE ADDITIONS MADE TO HIS INCOME BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED NINE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 17. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVE, WE HA VE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) H AS NOT CONSIDERED ANY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING T HE ADDITIONS MADE TO HIS INCOME BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION. 18. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE LD.FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY WILL PROVIDE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSE SSEE IN ALL THE YEARS. OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEA RS WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE AO AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE SET A SIDE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) SIMPLY FOR THE REASONS TH AT IT IS THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO FAILED TO RECORD SPECIFIC F INDING ON MERIT OF THESE ISSUES. THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. IT(SS)A.NO.77 AND 78/AHD/2012 (REVENUES APPEALS) 19. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DAT ED 30.11.2011 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN TH E CASE OF MANSI BUILDERS LTD. ON WHICH PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS HAVE BE EN MADE. SINCE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, THEREFORE, LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 14 ADDITIONS FROM THE HANDS OF MANSI BUILDERS LTD. TH E RELEVANT FINDING RECORDED BY THELD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: THE ADDITIONS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HAND S OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN A.Y. 1999-00 TO 2004-05 (EXCEP T A.Y.2002- 03) HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASE OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A)-III , AHMEDABAD ON MERITS. THIS BEING THE CASE, I SEE NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPA NY. THE SAID DECISION FINDS SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS. THE HON'BLE CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARASMAL DANGI ALIAS PARASMAL JAIN VS ACIT [2006] 100 TTJ (CHENNAI) 608 HAS HELD THAT 'A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WILL COME TO AN END W HEN SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IS MADE IN CASE OF A PARTICULA R PERSON.' THE HON'BLE JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS ASHOK KUMAR CHHUGANI [2006] 104 TTJ (JODH) 134 HAS ALSO HELD TH AT 'ONCE AN ADDITION IS MADE IN ANOTHER PARTY'S HANDS ON SUBSTA NTIVE IS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION ON PRO TECTIVE BASIS IN ASSESSEE'S HAND.' THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF BHATIA MOTOR STORES VS CIT [2006] 200 CTR 385 (MP) HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO P ROVISION ANYWHERE IN THE ACT STIPULATING THAT PROTECTIVE ASS ESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE ALONG WITH ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT.' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS IN TOTALITY AND RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS F OR A.YS. 1999- 00 TO 2001-02, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN CASE OF THE A PPELLANT COMPANY ARE HEREBY VACATED. AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE , THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE SAID YEARS ALSO STAND DELETED. 20. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE SIMPLY FOR THE REAS ON THAT ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE A ND THE ISSUES ARE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ISSUE REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION BECOME ALIVE BY RESTORATION OF THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A), A PROTECTIVE ADDITION DELETED FO R THAT REASON WOULD ALSO BE GET REVIVED. HE CONCEDED THAT FINDING OF THE L D.CIT(A) IN THESE TWO YEARS BE SET ASIDE AND THESE ISSUES BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH & ANRS. VS. ACIT (6 APPEALS) 15 FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJE CTION ON THE PROPOSAL OF THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE VERY REASON FOR DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION ASSIGNED BY THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDI TION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH. THE MOMENT THE ISSUE REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION HAS BEEN SET ASIDE T O THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION, THE REASON WOULD EXTING UISH, AND THEREFORE, THIS FINDING WOULD ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ). THESE ISSUES ARE ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDIC ATION. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL FIRST DECIDE THE STATUS O F SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION, AND THEREAFTER, TAKE THE ISSUE REGARDING PROTECTIVE ADDITION. 22. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER