Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 21 March, 2013
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ए, अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
" A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
ी मकल
ु ु कमार
ु ावत, या यक सद य एवं ी ट .आर.मीणा, लेख ा सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI MUKUL Kr.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And
SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.832/Ahd/2010
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2003-04)
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer
Patel Vs. Ward-1
Mota Wada Anand
Chikhodra, Anand
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AEDPP 4171 J
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri U.S. Bhati, A.R.
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr.D.R.
सनवाई
ु क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 21/03/2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30/4/13
आदे श / O R D E R
PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee arising from the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals)-IV, Baroda dated 01/02/2010 passed for A.Y. 2003-04. Grounds raised are as follows:-
1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and in facts in dismissing the ground of appeal vide which the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was challenged as bad in law.ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -2- 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in law and on facts as he has failed to appreciate that there was no material before the A.O. at the time of issue of notice u/s.148 to entertain the "belief" that income had escaped assessment in the case of the appellant for the A.Yr. 2003-04. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax on wrong assumption proceeded that the appellant had challenged only the sufficiency of the reasons.
3.0. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.10,88,196/- u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of retracted statement of the appellant.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) rws 147 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 23/12/2008 were that the assessee is a tobacco merchant. It was noted by the AO that a return of income was filed at Rs.78,712/-. The reason for the impugned proceedings was that a survey u/s.133A was conducted in the case of M/s.Vastu Construction on 23.09.2003. A document was found in a brief case. On the basis of that information, in the assessment proceedings on the said concern, a summon u/s.131(1) was issued to the assessee. His statement was recorded on oath. In the said statement, it was admitted that although the land document was made at Rs.1,32,500/- and construction agreement was made for Rs.7,75,000/-, but the price charged by the builder, i.e. Shri Bankim Patel as per the said document (page No.45) was as under:-
ITA No.832/Ahd/2010Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -3- "Built up Area Building No.7 (1) Ground Floor 1304.66sq.ft.
(2) F.Floor Area 1304.66sq.ft.
115.50sq.ft.
(3) Parking 243.43sq.ft.
(4) Balcony 66.49sq.ft.
(5) Staircase & Room 217.13sq.ft.
3020.87sq.ft.
Plot = 2.42 x Rs.360 = Rs. 8,71,200/-
Const.Cost = 3020 x Rs.450 = Rs.13,59,000/-
Extra Work = Rs. 1,85,996/-
TOTAL Rs.24,16,196/-"
2.1. On the basis of the above admission, a notice u/s.148 was issued requiring the assessee to explain the source of investment in House No.7, Maruti Pravesh-II, Anand. The assessee has filed a reply to the AO and stated that the said answer was not the correct answer, therefore on the basis of the said answer, no addition should be made. He has submitted that the statement which was recorded on 20/01/2006 was not a correct statement because at that time he was not in a normal state of mind due to ill-health. The assessee has also furnished an Affidavit. The assessee has also filed an Affidavit of his wife. There was a reference in his reply of cross-examination done by the legal representative of M/s.Vastu Construction. In the said cross-examination, the cost of construction and the cost of land was stated at Rs.10 lacs and Rs.1,40,000/-ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -4- respectively. There was also a reference of a Valuation Report of a Registered Valuer. The assessee has reiterated that on account of bad health, he was under pressure and incorrectly answered. As per the assessee's retraction, the cost of construction, etc. incurred by the assessee was alleged as under:-
"(a) The total cost of my house on Plot No.7 was as follows:
The purchase price + Expenses for Plot of Land .... Rs.1,40,000/- Cost of construction on this plot as per the Agreement with builders .... Rs.7,75,000/- Add : Extra Construction cost... Rs.2,13,273/- Rs.9,88,273/-
Therefore, total cost of my house in Block No.7 Rs.11,28,273/-"
2.2. He has emphasized that only an amount of Rs.11,28,237/- was paid. There was a reference of few case-laws in the submissions made before the AO. However, the AO was not convinced and reproduced relevant portion of the statement which was recorded on 20/01/2006; reproduced below:-
"1) Q.No.14 : In response to Q.No.13, you have produced the copy of agreement wherein the agreement is made for Rs.7,75,000/- but as per reply to Q.No.13 it is stated that agreement is made for Rs.9,80,000/-. In that case why you have entered into an agreement for a lesser amount?ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -5- Ans. The agreement given by the builder was signed without reading and under trust the same was signed. Thus, the information of the amount was not known.
ii) Q.No.15 : I am showing you the page Nos.35 to 44 of Annex.A/1 impounded from Shri Bankimbhai D.Patel, at "Shantiniketan" Ishwar Patlikar Marg, Anand. After going through the same, can you say whether the marble fittings, electric fittings, kitchen fittings, bathroom fittings etc. are related to your house (Block No.7)?
Ans. Yes. I have gone through and after verification, it is confirmed that the same are pertained to my house, No.7, Maruti Pravesh-II.
iii) Q.No.16 : I am showing you page No.45 of Annex.A/1 wherein indication of block No.7 built up area with bifurcation totalling 3020.87 sq.ft.construction, plot cost Rs.8,71,200/- construction cost @ Rs.450/- per sq.ft. - cost Rs.13,59,000/- and extra work of Rs.1,85,996/- totalling to Rs.24,16,196/- is showing. After going through all these details, state whether the same is pertained to your house? If so, how much amount and how the payment has been made to the builder?
Ans.All the details pertaining to my house no.7, Maruti Pravesh-II. After negotiating with a reduction of Rs.2,00,000/- the entire amount has been remitted to the builder by cash & cheque. This amount is remitted out of my own money and the help received from my two daughters who are staying at Neirobi and Lusaka; from the agriculture income; in laws and other relatives from abroad.
iv) Q.No.17 : Against the cost of house, after reducing Rs.2 lacs from the total cost of Rs.24,16,196/-, you stated to have remitted Rs.22,16,196/- to the builder. Whereas in answer to ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -6- Q.No.10 the total cost of house is indicated Rs.9,30,000/- and in answer to Q.No.14, the agreement for construction has been made as Rs.7,75,000/-. Please state why you have mentioned less amount in the agreement for the construction?
Ans: The agreement shown by the builder was signed by us without reading and the document of the land prepared by the builder was received by us as there is no necessity to affix our signature."
2.3. The AO has also reproduced the relevant question of cross- examination as follows:-
"Q.No.7 : Please explain the discrepancy arrised in reference to Q.No.16 and 17 of your statement on 20/01/2006. (Asked by representative of the "Vastu Construciton") Ans: I have once again gone through the contents of the page no.45 of the Annex.A/1 and state that these measurement and price do not pertain to me. These belongs to my relative and the measurement and price is similar to my house along with facility of Gutter and Road in some posh area and prepared by Shri Bankimbhai Patel. I have nothing to do-with this noting. I have paid aroung 10 lacs rupees for construction of said building and I have not paid over and above this amount." (Answer by Rasik C.Patel)"
2.4. The AO has therefore observed that even in cross- examination, the assessee had not fully disowned the identity of the property. The assessee has also not denied the notings on the said page recovered from the builder. So, the AO has opined that there was a component of on-money on the basis of the document ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -7- recovered and the admission made by the assessee. It was also noted by the AO that there was an addition in this regard in the hands of Shri Bankim D.Patel, the builder. A conclusion was drawn by the AO that the assessee had paid on-money towards purchase of land and building and the same was worked out as under:-
"Particulars Value of Source explain Difference Land/Building by the assessee (un4explained as per investment) statement dt.
20/01/2006
Land 8,71,200/- 1,40,000/- 7,31,200/-
Building 13,44,996/- 9,88,000/- 3,56,996/-
Total 22,16,196/- 11,28,000/- 10,88,196/-"
2.5. Against the said addition, the assessee had gone in appeal.
3. The assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated u/s.147 of IT Act. Relevant portion of the submission made before the ld.CIT(A) are reproduced below:-
"(1) The combined reasons recorded for the A.Yr. 2003-04 & 2004-05 (kindly see page No.1 & 2 of the enclosed paper book) clearly state that the ld.A.O. embarked upon the reassessments solely to conduct investigation in order to verify the source of payments made by the appellant. The above would make it clear that there was no material with the ld.A.O. as on 28th March, 2008 to the effect that there was ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -8- escapement of income by the appellant in the return for the A.Yr.2003-04 and he initiated the proceedings u/s.147 only on the basis of suspicion. As per the settled position of the law, this is not permissible.
2) The notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued by the ld.A.O. after recording reasons u/s.148(2) on 28th March, 2008 (copies of notices are placed at page No.3 & 4 of the paper book) on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded on 20th January, 2006 by the Department. During the course of recording of statement, the appellant was confronted with Page Nos.35 to 45 of Annexure-A/1 impounded from the briefcase of Shri Bankimbhai D.Patel of M/s.Vastu Construction. By the time the reasons were recorded on 28th March, 2008, the statement dated 20th January, 2006 of the appellant was retracted by way of an affidavit and also during the cross examination of the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings of M/s.Vastu Construction, which were culminated on 29th December, 2006. Copies of statement of Examination in chief, cross examination and affidavits are placed in enclosed paper book at page No.5 to 18. A report of an Approved Valuer, showing the valuation of Block No.7 of Maruti Pravesh-II, purchased by the appellant, was also placed on the record. (kindly see page No.19 to 25 of the paper book). Moreover, Shri Bankimbhai D.Patel from whose briefcase the alleged documents at Page Nos.35 to 45 of Annexure-A/1 were impounded and who was the admittedly author of those documents at the first stance strongly denied that the contents of those documents pertain to the appellant as evident from Page No.8 of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) & 144A of the Act on 29th December, 2006, a copy of which is placed at page No.26 to 39 of the enclosed paper book. The relevant extracts are reproduced hereunder for sake of convenience."ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04 -9- 3.1. Ld.CIT(A) was not convinced and held that the assessee was in a proper physical and mental condition when the statement was recorded. The assessee has not retracted the said statement even the Affidavits were submitted after a lapse of one year. It was concluded that the assessment was correctly made on the impugned amount based upon the incriminating material recovered after the survey operation. The assessee is now further in appeal.
4. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr.U.S.Bhati appeared and argued that the reopening was bad in law. His first plank of argument was that there was no incriminating material which was recovered from the assessee. The statement which was made the basis for the reopening of the assessment was also retracted. According to ld.AR Mr.U.S.Bhati there was no material in possession of the Revenue Department on the basis of which the assessment was reopened. The material impounded u/s.133A from the possession of other person and not from the possession of the assessee. As per the reasons recorded dated 28/03/2008 merely on the basis of 'reason to believe' the case was reopened. There was a denial of the statement at the time of cross-examination and it was stated that the cost of construction paid was Rs.10 lacs only. Even in the Affidavit, it was stated that the assessee was made to sit for 5 to 6 hours and after that the statement was recorded, meanwhile assessee became nervous. Rather, ld.AR has alleged that there was ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 10 -
inducement by the AO, hence the statement was not recorded with independent mind and free-will. Legal aspect of his argument was that once the original assessment u/s.143(3) for AY 2003-04 had already been completed, then there was no occasion to reopen the assessment again. For AY 2003-04, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 28/03/2008. Ld.AR has admitted that the notice was issued within four years. However, he has vehemently contested that merely on the basis of a statement recorded which was later on retracted should not be made the basis for reopening of the assessment. He has placed reliance on the order of Dr.J.Mohanvs. Asst.CIT (2012) 18 ITR 363(Trib)[Chennai] and CIT vs. Dr.N.Thipaa Setty (2010) 322 ITR 525 (Kar). He has also mentioned that the bona fide of the assessee can be established by the fact that in the subsequent assessment year, i.e. AY 2004-05 the assessment was made u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of IT Act vide an order dated 23/12/2008 but no addition was made and the returned income was accepted. Placing reliance on the Affidavit and the retraction, he has pleaded that the reopening was bad in law. The assessee has placed reliance on CIT vs. Bhuvanendran & Ors. (2008) 303 ITR 235 ( Mad.).
5. From the side of the Revenue, ld.Sr.DR Mr.Rahul Kumar appeared and supported the reopening of the assessment. He has argued that since the reopening was made within four years, ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 11 -
therefore the AO had power to tax an income which was detected in consequence upon the survey action conducted on Vastu Construction. According to ld.DR, the case-laws cited from the side of the assessee have no application on the facts of the case.
6. We have heard the submissions of both the sides. We have also perused the reasons recorded and the material evidence which was in the possession of the Revenue Department. The AO has recorded the reasons as follows:-
"REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT During the course of assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004- 05 in the case of M/s.Vastu Construction, anand, certain addition were made u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act based on the material impounded 1u/s.133A of the Act. In assessment proceeding, one of the tenant Shri Rashikbhai Chotabhai Patel (PAN AEDPP 4171 J) of the project developed by M/s.Vastu Construction, had confronted with the impounded material vide Annexure 'A/1 - page 45 u/s.131(1) dated 20/01/2006 and admitted that he has made the payments over and above the documented price totalling to Rs.22 lacs through cheque and cash. This confession leads to confirmation of payment of on money by Shri Rashikbhai Chotabhai Patel.
On verification of return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 the assessee has shown Rs.78713/- and Rs.46719/- as his total income for both the years. Therefore, the source of on money payment made by the assessee is required to be verified and needs further investigation. I therefore, reason to belief that the assessee has income which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act for assessment year 2003-04 & 2004-05 and hence, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s.148 of I.T.Act."ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 12 -
6.1. The document which was found from the brief case of one Shri Bankim D.Patel, C/o.Vastu Construction marked as "page No.5, Annexure-A-1", extract of the same already reproduced above has indicated that in respect of Building No.7, the total area was 3020.87 sq.ft. for which the cost of plot was Rs.8,71,200/- and the cost of construction was Rs.13,59,000/-, thus totalling to (approximately) Rs.24,16,000/-. This was the information which was in the possession of the AO. On the basis of the said information, a statement of the assessee was also recorded on 20/01/2006. Relevant portion of that statement has also been reproduced hereinabove. The AO has shown the assessee the Page Nos.35 to 44 impounded from Shri Bankimbhai Patel and in reply the assessee has confirmed that those documents pertained to his House No.7, Maruti Pravesh. Then the AO has shown the assessee the Page No.45 and after seeing that paper the answer given was that an amount of Rs.2 lacs was reduced after negotiation and an amount of Rs.22,16,196/- was remitted to the builder. It may not be out of place to mention here that the AO had duly given the benefit of the amount of Rs.11,28,000/-, the source of which was explained by the assessee, the relevant calculation has already been reproduced above. Because of the incriminating material and the statement of the assessee, in our humble opinion, the AO has rightly invoked the provisions of section 147 of IT Act in the present set of facts and ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 13 -
circumstances of the case. Thus, the said statement was duly corroborated by an evidence/incriminating material.
6.2. Section 147 prescribes that if the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may assess or reassess such income which has escaped assessment and which came to the notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. At this juncture, it is worth to mention that section 147 also contains a Proviso. That Proviso has restricted the reopening powers of the AO if the AO has taken the recourse of reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This Proviso says that no action shall be taken after the expiry of the four years unless any income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee or the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The present case now in hand do not fall under the first Proviso but fall under the main section, i.e. Section 147 of the IT Act. Further, vide Explanation-2 the section has prescribed that for the purposes of Section 147, there shall be an escapement of assessment where income chargeable to tax has been under assessed. In our considered opinion, since the Revenue Department had enough information in its possession, therefore fully empowered to reopen the assessment or otherwise assess this assessee specially within ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 14 -
four years as it has happened in the present case. The case-laws cited from the side of the assessee have no force because in our opinion the retraction which was made by the assessee was without any basis. Ld.AR Mr.U.S.Bhati has cited a decision of ITAT "C" Bench Chennai pronounced in the case of Dr.J.Mohan 52 SOT pag- 6 (18 ITR 363)[Trib.], wherein a survey was conducted and a statement was recorded. That statement was later on retracted. But the most important feature which was recorded in the said judgement was that there was no material available with the AO on the basis of which the said statement was recorded. On that ground, the respected Bench has opined that a reason must be formed by the AO to reopen an assessment on the basis of material or information. In the present case, that observation is required to be applied because the existence of page No.45, the incriminating material, was not denied by the assessee. Similarly, in the case of Dr.N.Thipaa Setty (2010) 322 ITR 525 (Kar), the statement recorded was not based upon an existing material on record. A retraction having no supporting evidence has no value in the eyes of law. Therefore, the Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed.
7. The next ground is Ground No.3 through which the assessee is aggrieved that merely on the basis of the said statement the impugned addition u/s.69 of the IT Act was made.
ITA No.832/Ahd/2010Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 15 -
7.1. We have examined certain facts in the light of the grievance of this appellant. We have noted that in the case of M/s.Vastu Construction, the concern who had developed the project and from whom the assessee had purchased the property in question, vide an assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.145(3) and 144A of IT Act dated 29/12/2006 the contents of the said page No.45, which was recovered at the time of survey, was duly considered. The contents of page No.45 have already been reproduced supra by us. In respect of the said page, the AO has recorded certain findings while framing the assessment of M/s.Vastu Construction and for ready reference reproduced below:-
"5.6. During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2003-04 in response to a summons u/s.131, on 19/01/2006 a statement of Shri Bankimbhai D.Patel was recorded wherein answere to Q.8 he had admitted that the writing in page No.45 of Annexure A/1 was his own handwriting and he had described the narration that one of the relatives of Shri Rasikbhai of Block No.7 asked for an estimation of the same measurement, plan and fixtures at a posh area of Anand. Further, in Q.No.9 of the same statement it was specifically asked to reply when at top of the paper the Block No.7 is indicated and the land area, building construction both with rate and amount and the extra work is specified at Rs.1,85,996/- (not even round figure) how it can be sated to be an estimate. In answer he has contended that the specification was as good as Block No.7 and whatever extra work was done at the relevant time was the choice of the person as per the estimate and therefore the particular amount was indicated.ITA No.832/Ahd/2010
Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 16 -
5.7. From the above, it can be observed that the person from whom the paper was impounded was categorically denied the description and handwriting of the page No.45 of Annexure A/1 at the relevant time though the handwriting was identical to previous pages, but after a lapse of more than two years he himself admits that the handwriting was his own and describes the same in such a fashion which cannot be digested or believed. Therefore, the contention is a deliberate attempt with a fabricated story to escape from the naked truth and avoid the consequences."
7.2. In that assessment, the AO has also reproduced the statement of this appellant recorded u/s.131 of IT Act dated 20/01/2006. The conclusion drawn by the AO on the basis of the statement was as under:-
"5.9. The above answers clearly speak the rate of land, rate of construction and the extra work done in respect of Block No.7 of Maruti Pravesh-II, Anand and the actual amount raised and collected in respect of the Block No.7. As against the above, while furnishing the details in respect of Block No.7 the assessee has shown only Rs.9,88,273/- (i.e. Rs.7,75,000/- value of block and Rs.2,13,273/- being cost of extra work). Similarly, the documentation of land indicate the value of plot only at Rs.1,32,500/-. In the instant case the on-money portion works out to Rs.11,21,700/- [Rs.20,30,200 (22,16,196
- 1,85,996) minus Rs.9,07,500 (1,32,500 + 7,75,000)]"
7.3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a case where merely on the basis of a statement the impugned addition was made. This is a case where the statement was recorded on the basis of an ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 17 -
incriminating material recovered during the course of survey operation.
7.4. Next, before us, ld.AR Mr.U.S.Bhati has vehemently stated that the said statement was not a statement under free-will, but it was recorded under duress. He has referred an Affidavit of the wife of the deponent. In the said statement, she has stated that her husband was made to sit for 5 to 6 hours and, therefore, he was nervous at the time when the statement was recorded. Be that as it was, if a taxpayer is aggrieved by a conduct of a Revenue Officer, then the correct procedure is to approach a Senior Officer, i.e. Commissioner of Income-tax, who has administrative authority to redress such complaint. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, the same is an Appellate Court, hence do not interfere in administrative matters. In any case, it is quite a strange that no immediate retraction was made either in the case of M/s.Vastu Construction or in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the entire allegation is merely a bald assertion and an unsupported complaint, therefore deserves to be ignored. Further, we have also noted that on merits the AO has examined the sources of investment to the extent of Rs.11,28,000/- out of the total investment in the said property of Rs.22,16,196/-, hence only the difference amount of Rs.10,88,196/- was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has not made any attempt to explain the balance unexplained investment. Even before us, no ITA No.832/Ahd/2010 Rasikbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2003-04
- 18 -
serious attempt was made to explain the impugned balance amount. In the result, we hereby hold that there was no fallacy in the findings on facts as also on law by the Revenue Authorities, hence the said addition is hereby confirmed. This ground is also dismissed.
8. In the result, Assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
( ट .आर.मीणा ) ( मकल
ु ु कमार
ु ावत )
लेखा सद य या यक सद य
( T.R. MEENA ) ( MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 30/ 4 /2013
ट .सी.नायर, व. न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-IV, Baroda
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
ु / BY ORDER,
आदे शानसार
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of direct dictation on computer dated ......6.4.13
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 22.4.13.................. 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 Dictating Member for pronouncement......
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S......30.4.13
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.................. 30.4.13
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..................................
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................