Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Acit, Central Circle-1(2),, ... vs Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel, Legal Heir ... on 19 June, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "C" BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member
And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
IT(SS)A Nos. 299 to 300 /Ahd/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2010-2011
The ACIT, Late Shri Bholidas T.
Central Circle-1(2), Patel, Legal Heir
Ah medabad Vs Shri Rupesh B. Patel,
(Appellant) B-26, Ish warkrupa
Society, Panchvati
Highway, Kalol-382721
PAN: ABI PP7554 M
(Respondent)
IT(SS)A No. 301/Ahd/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
The ACIT, Late Smt. Kusu mben B.
Central Circle-1(2), Patel,
Ah medabad Vs B-26, Ish warkrupa
(Appellant) Society, Panchvati
Highway, Kalol-382721
PAN: ABI PP7372F
(Respondent)
Reve nue by: Shri O.P. Vaishna v, CIT -D.R.
Assessee by: Shri S.N. So parkar, A. R.
Date of hearing : 25-04-2018
Date of pronounce ment : 19-06-2018
आदेश /ORDER
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These three appeals filed by revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11, arise from order of the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad dated 05-07-2016, in proceedings I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 2 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
IT(SS)A No. 299/Ahd/2016 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition u/s 50C of the I.T. Act of Rs.52,92,985/-.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that since the issue related to the addition, which was not based on any seized incriminating material, has been adjudicated, there is no need to comment on the merits of the addition.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the seized banakhat was not an incriminating material but the same was an official document.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O.
5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent."
3. The identical issue is involved all the three different appeals of revenue, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are adjudicated together by this common order by taking the facts of IT(SS)A No. 299/Ahd/2016 as a lead case.
4. A search u/s. 132 of the act was conducted in the case of Kalol-Prajapati Group on 6th Nov, 2012. A search warrant u/s. 132 of the act was also issued in the case of the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 153A of the act was issued on 5th April, 2013. In response the assessee has filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,55,570/- on 3rd May, 2013 which was also shown in the the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the act on 24th Sep, 2009. subsequently, a notice 143(2) on 8th Sep, 2004 was issued .A notice u/s 142(1) of the act was issued on October 2014 for certain details/documents and to produce the books of account and explain the nature of section of the documents seized during the search. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has noticed that assessee has sold non-agricultural land jointly with other members of his family as per the details given below:-
I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 3 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel SI Date of Docu No. Details of property Sellers Share Stamp Duty Paid Sales Sale value (As per Difference Sale Consideration Jantry) (As per sale deed) 1 13.08.2009 4688 survey No. 1045, (i) Rupesh B. Patel, ans 21.25% 1563500 1487500 6780485 5292985 Kalol Dhiren B. Patetf LH of Late Bhotidas T Patel),
(ii) Amrut Shivdasbhai Patel, 21.25% 1487500 6780485 5292985
(iii) Rajesh A. Patel HUF, 21.25% 1487500 6780485 5292985
(iv) Sarswati Dahyaben Patel, 15% 1050000 4786223 3736223
(v) Kusumben Bholidas Patel 21.25% 1487500 6780485 5292985 TOTAL 70,00,000 319, 08,163 249,08,163 On further verification and scrutiny of Banakhat found during the course of search , the assessing officer has noticed that assessee has shown short term capital gain of Rs. 6,57,387/- in respect of sale of land bearing survey no. 1045 at Kalol having share in the said land to the extent 21.25%. The sale consideration was shown at Rs. 14,87,500/-. The sale consideration of the said non-
agricultural land was finalized below the jantry rate as prescribed by the govt. rule which attract the provision of section 50C of the act. The assessee was issued show cause notice to explain why not the sale value of the assets should be determined as per the payment of stamp duty. The assessee responded that the said land bearing survey no. 1045 was sold as per the banakhat executed on 2nd April, 2008 and the sale proceed was fixed and Rs. one lac was given to land owner by the society on 2nd April, 2008. He has stated that officially the registered deed was executed on 13th August, 2009 at Rs. 70 lacs for land bearing survey no. 1045 as agreed in banakhat. The documents were executed on price agreed in the Banakhat and the stamp duty was paid by society on current status of land on the date of execution of deed. He has stated that the land was already also sold by sellers on price fixed under banakhat executed on 2nd April, 2008 reflected in document executed prior to the date of search on 13 th I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 4 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel August, 2009. The assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee. He has stated that facts of the case are that the assessee along with other persons of Bata group purchased agricultural land on 21st May, 2007 bearing several deed survey nos, therefore, they got these survey nos. merged into two survey nos. viz 907/1 and 1045. Thereafter, the land was converted into non-agricultural land before selling it to Shri Ram Housing Co-op Housing Society Ltd. on 13th Aug, 2009. The said buyer society was promoted, organized and developed by the Bata group itself. The assessing officer has stated that copy of un-registered banakhat was found in the search from the premises of the assessee. The assessing officer has also stated that as per the land revenue law prevailing in the state of Gujarat housing co-operative society cannot hold agricultural land therefore the assessee cannot transfer the title of the agricultural land on the strength of such banakhat. He further stated that there was no purpose of making such banakhat with the housing society which was not authorized to hold agricultural land on 13th August, 2009. The actual transfer of the said land was taken place on 13th Aug, 2009 after converting to non-agricutural land the date on which the sale deed was executed. On scrutiny of the Banakhat as above it was discerned to the assessing officer that agreement for sale by way of an un-registered banakhat was simply a tool to escape from the huge tax liability arising on account of short term capital gain. Consequently, on verification of Banakhat seized during the course of search the assessing officer has adopted the value of sale consideration as per the stamp duty paid on registration of sale deed and the difference of Rs. 2,49,08,163/- was added to the total income of the joint owner of the property as per percentage of their holding. Since the assessee was holding 21.25% share in the said land, therefore, assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 52,92,985/- under the head income from capital gain u/s. 50C of the act.
5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 5 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel "5.8 The facts of the case, submission of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered. As discussed hereinabove, the appellant alongwith other co-owners purchased agricultural land and subsequently the same was sold to Shri Ram Co-op Housing Society Ltd in the F.Y. 2008-09 through a banakhat on 2.4.2008. Capital gain earned on sale of the land in survey No. 1045 at Kalol was disclosed in the return of income alongwith computation of income. In order to verify the facts and submission of the appellant the case records of the AO were called for and it was noticed with the assistance of the AO that the assessee disclosed all the material facts in his return filed for A.Y. 2009-10. Appraisal Report was also perused and it was noticed that no other document except this banakhat was seized. Thus, it was clear that the contents of the banakhat for the land seized during the course of search was not having any new material information which was not disclosed by the appellant in his return of income filed u/s 139(1). Time for issue of notice u/s 143(2) to select the case in scrutiny was also over prior to the date of initiation of the search. It may be mentioned that the issue related to addition u/s 153A in the cases in which the proceedings are not abated has been decided by several high courts and tribunals as relied by the appellant. Legal position on the, issue has been discussed comprehensively in the case of Kabul Chawla 61 Taxmann.com 412 (2015)(Del) dated 28 August, 2015.
6. The Delhi High Court held in this case that once search takes place under section 132 of the Act, notice u/s.153A will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. The assessments and reassessments pending as on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for these AYs will have to be computed by the AO in the assessment orders as a fresh exercise. The AO will use all normal assessment powers in respect of the six years preceding to the previous year in which the search takes place. He has power to assess and reassess the total income of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years.
Thus, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. 6.1 Although section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of the evidence found in the course of the search or other post-search material or information available with the Assessing Officer which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously, an assessment has to be made under this section only on the basis of the seized material" In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in section 153A is relatable to the abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to the completed assessment proceedings. In so far as the pending assessments are concerned, jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Therefore, one assessment shall be made separately for each of the AYs on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the A.O. The completed assessments can be interfered with by the Assessing Officer while the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthe'd during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of the original assessment proceedings.
7. The facts in the case of Saumya Construction P. Ltd. (supra) were squarely applicable to the present case. The relevant extract of the findings in the case by the Ahmedabad Tribunal are reproduced as under. -
" Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee was subjected to a search and seizure operation on 7th October 2009. Accordingly, in view of provisions of Section 153A(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 6 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel under section 153A was issued on 4th August 2010. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,44,00,130/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction and development of properties, trading in fabric and earns business income as also income from other sources. During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings details as requisitioned, were filed from time of time and taken to record. In the assessment order, there is reference to incriminating material found during the search operations on the assessee. The only addition made in the assessment was for Rs. 11,05,51,000/- in respect of "on money said to have been paid by the assessee to one Shri Rohit Modi. This addition is not based on any incriminating material found during search on the assessee but on the basis of statements given by Rohit P. Modi and Kamlesh Modi. The assessee did seek cross examination of these persons but as these were sated to have gone out of station, the cross examination could not be offered of the assessee. There was no incriminating material found during the search which was used in the assessment proceedings for the making the additions in impugned assessment. Aggrieved by the assessment so framed, assessee carried the mater in appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the assessing officer.
5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the in the light of the applicable legal position.
6. We have noted that, as learned counsel fairly accepts, the grievance of the assessee is not against framing of the assessment under section 153A but is confined to making of any additions or disallowances other than on the basis of incriminating material fund during the search operations in effect thus, additions cannot be made other than on the basis of incriminating material found during search operation. That plea stands approved by coordinate bench of the tribunal, in the case of Sanjay Aggrawal vs. DC1 [(2014) 47 Taxmann.com 210 (Del)], by observing as follows:
"12 The next judgment relied on by the ld. AR is Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra). In that case, the Hon'ble High Court held that even if assessment order had already been passed in respect of one or any of the relevant assessment order either u/s. 143(1)(a) or 143(3) prior to the initiation of search, still the A.O. is empowered to reopen those proceedings u/s. 153A without any fetters and re-assessee total income taking note of undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. It is clear that the Hon'ble High Court dealt with a situation in which some incriminating material was found in respect of a non-pending assessment. It was in the background that the Hon'ble High Court held that sec. 153A applies if incriminating material is found even if assessments are completed. The question as to whether any addition can be made in respect of completed assessments when no incriminating material was found, was apparently left open. However, we find that there are sufficient in direct hints given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court m the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia'(supra) about not making of any addition in respect of an assessment year for which the assessment is already completed unless some incriminating material is found during the course of search. This can be seen from the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court "20. A question may arise as to how this is sought to be achieved where an assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of those six assessment years, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act 1 If such an order is already in existence, having obviously been passed prior to the initiation of the search/requisition, the Assessing Officer is empowered to I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 7 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search...."
13. The above extracted observations of the Hon'ble High Court, which are though obiter dicta, make the point clear that where an assessment order has already been passed for a year(s) within the relevant six assessment years, then also the A.O is duty bound to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income but by 'taking note of the undisclosed income if any 'unearthed during the search'. The expression 'unearthed during the search' is quite significant to denote that in respect of completed or non- pending assessments, the Assessing Officer is albeit duty bound to assess or reassess the total income but there is a cap on the scope of additions in such assessment, being the items of income unearthed during the search . In other words, the determination of 'total income' in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments are already completed on the date of search, shall not be influenced by the items of income other than those based on the material unearthed during the course of search. There is not and cannot be any quarrel over the proposition that the Assessing Officer has no option but to determine the total income of the assesses m respect of the relevant six assessment years. However, the scope of such determination of total income is different in respect of the years for which the assessments are pending vis-vis the years for which assessments are non-pending. In respect to the assessment years for which the original assessments have already been completed on the date of search, the total income shall be determined by restricting additions only to those which flow from incriminating material found during the course of search. If no incriminating material is found in respect of such completed assessment, then the total 'income in the proceedings u/s 153A shall be computed by considering the originally determined income. If some incriminating material is found in, respect of such assessment years for which the assessment is not pending, then the total income would be determined by considering the originally determined income plus income emanating from the incriminating material found during the course of search, in the other scenario of the assessments pending on the date of search which would abate in terms of second proviso to sec. 153A(1), the total income shall be computed afresh uninfluenced by the fact whether or not there is any incriminating material. In fact, this is the position which follows when we read the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) in juxtaposition to the special bench order in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.(supra).
14. Since the Special Bench has decided this issue in this manner, it is not possible for us to deviate from the same. There has to be some consistency in the view taken by the Tribunal: Once a Special Bench has decided a particular issue in a particular manner, then, that becomes binding on all the division benches across the country unless there is a contrary judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that of some High Court As the Ld. DR failed to point out any specific and direct judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court on the issue which is obtaining in the present appeal, we are disinclined to deviate from the Special Bench order in the case of All Cargo (supra). We, therefore, hold in principle that no addition can be made for any assessment year u/s 153A, the assessment for which is not pending on the date of search, unless any incriminating material is found in the course of search."
7. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Respectfully following the same, and having noted that the additions of Rs. 11,05,51,000/- is not based on any incriminating material found during the search operations on the assessee, we delete the said addition."
I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 8 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel
8. It was an undisputed fact that on the date of initiation of the no assessment proceedings were pending in this assessment year. Therefore, the proceedings were not abated in the case as mentioned in the second proviso to section 153A (1) of the Act. It seems that the AO lost sight of the fact that he was not making an assessment under section 153A (1) of the Act read with its second proviso. As discussed hereinabove, there is no indication in the contents of the assessment order that the addition was made on the basis of any seized material. The sole basis of addition was copy of the banakhat seized in the course of search which was already disclosed in the return of income for the year under consideration as discussed in the foregoing paras. Therefore, after considering the facts of the case, the position of law on the issue and respectfully following the decisions of the jurisdictional ITAT and the Hon'ble High Courts, in my considered opinion, the action of the AO was not justified. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is allowed.
Since the issue related to the addition, which was not based on any seized incriminating material and the proceedings in the assessment year were not abated on the date of initiation of the search, has been adjudicated, there is no need to comment on the merits of the issue.
9. The remaining grounds of appeal were related to charging of interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961. Levy of interest under section 234B of the IT Act 1961 is mandatory. The AO does not have any discretion as to whether to charge interest or not under the aforesaid section. In the case of Anjum M H Ghaswala reported in 252 ITR 1 the Apex Court has held that charging of interest under section 234B is mandatory. No appeal lies against the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Appeal could arise only when penalty under section 271(1)(c) is levied. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed."
6. During the course of appellate proceeding before us the learned counsel has contended that no incriminating material was found from the search on the basis of which addition can be made in the case of the assessee. He has placed the alliance on the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Somya constructions private limited (2016) 387 ITR 529(Guj) and decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Dharamsihbai Sonani 161 ITD 627. On the other hand the learned DR has contended that incriminating material in the form of unregistered Bhanakhat was found and seized during the course of such action in the case of the assessee which established that assessee has not reported his income from sale of land according to the provision as prescribed in section 50 C of the act.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. During the course of appellate proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 9 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel 153A(i)(b) of the act, the assessing officer has noticed that the assessee along with other family co-owners has sold the non-agricultural land as under:-
SI Date of Sale Docu Details of Sellers Share Stamp Duty Sales Sale value (As Difference No. property Paid Considerat per Jantry) ion (As per sale deed) 1 13.08.2009 4689 survey (i) Rupesh B. 21.25% 1563500 1681513 7827806 6146293 No.907/1, Patel, ans Dhiren Kalol B. Patel( LH of Late Bholidas T Patel),
(ii) Amrut 21.25% 1681512 7827806 6146294 Shivdasbhai Patel, (Hi) Rajesh A. 21.25% 1681513 7827806 6146293 Patel HUF,
(iv) Sarswati 15% 1186950 5525510 4338560 Dahyaben Patel,
(v) Kusumben 21.25% 1681512 7827806 6146294 | Bholidas Patel TOTAL 79,13,000 368,36,734 289,23,734] We have noticed that during the course of search action a banakhat (Agreement to sale) of land bearing survey no. 1045 was found & seized. On scrutiny of the seized banakhat it was noticed that the banakhat was executed for sale of agricultural land with the buyer M/s Sriram Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. on 02-04-
2008. We have also perused the judicial pronouncements referred by the learned counsel as supra and find that facts of the case of the assessee are distinguishable from the facts reported in the judicial pronouncements referred by the learned counsel. We find that in the case of the assessee unregistered Banakhat was found and seized during the course of search from which it was discerned that the assessee has not disclosed correct income from capital gain on sale of land as per provision of section 50 C of the act. We have also noticed that facts of the case of the assessee is also distinguishable from the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad of the above referred case because in the case of the assessee unregistered Banakhat was found and seized and as per law sale of agricultural land to the non agricultural is prohibited as per the prevailing law in I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 10 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel the Gujarat State. In view of the above facts we considered that judicial pronouncement relied upon by the learned counsel are not applicable to the case of the assessee.
As per the land revenue law prevailing in the state of Gujarat Housing Co-op Societies cannot hold agricultural land. We consider that it is demonstrated from the following facts that the seized banakhat is an incriminating document on scrutiny of which it was discerned to the assessing officer that true income was not disclosed by the assessee.
(i) As per law, the assessee cannot transfer agricultural land to the to the non-agricultural entity merely on the basis of said bankhat because of prohibition imposed by the law prevailing in the state of Gujarat
(ii) The Shri Ram Co-op Housing Society Ltd. is not legally entitled to hold agricultural land under its ownership.
(iii) Actually the ownership of the land was transferred to the Shri Ram Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd. on 13/08/2009 on the date when the document was registered.
(iv) On scrutiny of the incriminating banakhat, it was discerned to the assessing officer that there was under reporting of capital gain against the provision of sec. 50C of the act. by not reporting it according to stamp duty paid.
(v) On scrutiny of the seized banakhat, it was observed that the said un- registered banakhat society was used as a tool to evade the payment of capital gain as stipulated in the provisions of section 50C of the act.
(vi) On the basis of seized banakhat, it was revealed that the value of land according to stamp duty was Rs. 3,68,36,734 however as per the above referred banakhat its sale consideration was shown at Rs. 79,13,000/- .This modus operandi was discerned from the banakhat found and seized doing search action.
(vii) We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the contents and important evidences which was discerned from the seizing of the I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 11 ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel banakkhat demonstrating that assessee has incorrectly reported his income .
We observe that the assessment u/s. 153A of the act is linked with search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A of the act and the object of the section is to bring to tax the undisclosed income which is found in the course or pursuant to the search or requisition. There was no scrutiny assessment made in the case of the assessee which demonstrates that the Banakhat an incriminating material found and seized during the search action u/s. 132 was not already on record. We find that the impugned Banakhat found and seized during search action u/s. 132 of the act as specific incriminating document demonstrating undisclosed income of the assessee was not on record before detecting it during search action. The view of the ld. CIT(A) that assessee has filed his return of income showing the amount of consideration as per Bankahat is merely a hypothetical assumption that cannot be assimilated with actual availability of the Banakhat as material on record. We do not find any merit in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and observe that it was only on scrutiny of this incriminating document found and seized during the course of search it was discerned to the assessing officer that the assessee had not reported his income as per the provision of section 50C of the act. In view of the above facts and findings we are not inclined with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, therefore, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
8. In the result, all the three appeal of the revenue are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19-06-2018
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 19/06/2018
I.T(SS).A No. 299 to 301/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 Page No 12
ACIT vs. Late Shri Bholidas T. Patel and Late Smt. Kusumben B. Patel आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद