Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 13 October, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH - AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, AM)
ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009
A. Y.: 2005-06
Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel, Vs The D. C. I. T. (OSD),Circle-9,
19,Sarvoday Nagar Society, Ahmedabad
Bhuyangdev, Ahmedabad
PA No. AAMPP 6740 L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri S. N. Divetia, AR
Respondent by Shri S. K. Meena, Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 13-10-2011
Date of pronouncement: 20-10-2011
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 28-07-2009, for assessment year 2005-06, on the following grounds:
"1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 28.7.2009 for A. Y. 2005-06 by CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad partly confirming the additions aggregating to Rs.1,06,92,477 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the following additions made by AO.ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 2
Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad
(a) Loose paper page 1 of Ann-A: Rs.42,97,627
(b)Loose paper page 7 & 10 of Ann-A Rs.22,06,000
(c) Loose paper No.14 of Ann-A Rs.22,40,000
(d) Loose paper No.14(Back side) Rs.17,46,000
(e) Cash found during survey Rs. 2,02,850
2.2 That in facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the above said additions.
2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the impugned additions without considering the submissions made from time to time and material produced before her. The Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with fully and properly the contentions raised by the appellant with regard to the impugned additions.
2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the appellant had failed to give an documentary evidence with regard to the expenses and therefore the notings recorded on the loose papers itself were liable to be taxed and not the income therein.
3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding multiple additions without allowing the benefit of telescoping."
2. The facts of the case as noted in the impugned order are that the assessee is engaged in construction activities in his individual capacity as well as his partnership firms named (i) Parth Builders (ii) Parth Associates (iii) Parth Developers and (iv) Pooja Associates. Return of income was filed on 31-10-2005 declaring total income Rs.13,39,318/- which was assessed u/s !43(3) of the IT Act at Rs.1,26,03,995/- in which addition of Rs.1,12,64,677/- was made ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 3 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad which was challenged before the learned CIT(A). On perusal of the assessment order shows that following additions have been made on the basis of papers impounded during survey conducted at the premises of the appellant u/s 133 A on 18-3-2005. During survey cash of Rs.2,02,850/- was found at the premises of the assessee along with documents in the form of loose papers, chits which were found, inventorized as Annexure-A containing 20 pages and impounded. The statement of the assessee was also recorded during survey on 18-3-2005 in which the assessee declared Rs.1 crore as his unaccounted income for financial year 2004-05 received as on- money receipts from construction of various residential schemes and projects, Rs.75 lacs as on-money from Ahmedabad scheme and Rs.25 lacs as on-money from Mehsana schemes. The documents on the basis of which additions have been made by the AO and which are discussed by the AO are summarized below in a tabular form.
Sr. Description Amount Pertaining Reasons given in the assessment No. of to the order impounded project paper i. Annexure 42,97,627 Prasthan This page is dated 28.2.05 and on A Page 1 Scheme the left hand side cash received from various persons totaling to Rs.42,97,627 is noted. Against some persons names, flat numbers allotted have been mentioned. On the right hand side of the chit cash taken to petty cash amount, advance made in cash to certain persons, whose initials are given and balance cash in hand are mentioned.
This page is enclosed as Annexure-1 of this order.
ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 4Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad The AO has stated t4hat the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation and had added back on the basis of surrender of income in which on money pf Rs.75 lacs from various schemes at Ahmedabad has been surrendered. The relevant page of the statement of the appellant dated 18.3.2005 in Gujarati is enclosed as Annexure-2 of this order.
ii. Annexure 61,700 Payments The assessee explained that this A Page 5 at site page (enclosed as Annexure-3 of office this order) contains narrations of payments made to labour and site office which was not found tenable by the AO and was added back.
Iv Annexure 22,06,000 This As has mentioned when asked to A Page 7 & pertains to explain this paper (enclosed as 10 profit Annexure -4 of this order), the distributioin assessee has replied that he had of land at purchased the said Navrang Land Mehsana for Rs.22,06,000 in cash and named received Rs.25,40,000 in cash from Navrang the members on sale of the said Land land and the difference of between Rs.3,34,000 had been shown as his the income in the return of income of assessee AY 2006-07. The AO asked the and his assessee to produce documentary partner evidence of purchase of land, source of payment made for purchase and date-wise details with evidence with regard to receipts from members of Rs.25,40,000 in cash and also required the assessee to inform whether these transactions were recorded in his books.
The assessee did not furnish any explanation for the queries raised and the AO added back RS.22,06,000 that is (Rs.25,40,000 (money received on sale of land) -
Rs.3,34,000 (income disclosed in return) ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 5 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad V Annexure Prasthan This page is enclosed as Annexure A Page 14 Project -I -5 of this order which was claimed to be adhoc account records of Prasthan Project-I. It was stated to the AO that it was total cash received from sale of twelve bunglows were Rs.25,62,200 out of which expenditure incurred for payment to landlord by cash of Rs.22,40,000. Net profit received Rs.3,22,000 that is Rs.25,62,200 minus Rs.22,40,200 was disclosed as undisclosed income in the return of income for AY 2005-06.
The AO asked the assessee to furnish date-wise documentary evidence of Rs.22,40,000, alongwith land purchase documents, also date-wise documentary evidence for sale of 12 bungalows for Rs.25,62,000 along with complete names and addresses of persons to whom the bungalows were sold.
The assessee did not furnish the requisite details and the AO relying on the disclosure statement made during the surveywhere the assessee has disclosed on money receipt amounting to Rs.75 lacs from his various projects as the basis for making this addition that is Rs.25,62,000 - Rs.3,22,000 = Rs.22,40,000.
Vi Annexure Prasthan This page is enclosed as Annexure A Page 14 Project -6 of this order which is adhoc (back side) account record of Prasthan Project.
Total cash received from sale of ten bungalows was Rs.20,07,650 out of which expenditure incurred for payment to landlord by cash Rs.17,46,000. Net profit received of Rs.2,61,650 (i.e. Rs.20,07,650 -
Rs.17,46,000) was disclosed as undisclosed income in the return of income for AY 2005-06.
ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 6Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad The AO asked the assessee to produce documentary evidence for cash received as well as for payments, cash paid alongwith documents of land purchased, none of which was furnished to the AO.
The AO relying on the disclosure
statement made during the survey
added back this amount that is
Rs.17,46,000 (Rs.20,07,650 -
Rs.2,61,650).
Vii Annexure 4,43,500 Payments This page is enclosed as Annexure
A Page 17 - 7 of this order. The AO did not
accept the contention of the
assessee that this page was
forgotten at the site office and he
had nothing to do with it. This page
reflects the payments aggregating
to Rs.4,43,500 out of unaccounted
cash made to Jay Corporation,
Rajanibhai P. Patel and Chimanlal
P. Patel.
Viii Annexure 67,000 Sale of In the impounded page (enclosed
A Page 20 shop at as Annexure-8) of this order) cash
Navrang receipt of Rs.67,000 has not been
Flat. explained, therefore, the AO added
back this amount as undisclosed
income for AY 2005-06.
Ix Cash 2,02,850 Cash at No satisfactory explanation was
impounded business given during the survey and neither
premises later and therefore it was added
back by the AO as undisclosed
income.
On the written submissions of the assessee, remand report of the AO was called for which was received vide his letter dated 20-10-08 which was also made available to the assessee and was received by the assessee on 5-11-2008. Counter comments on the same were received vide letter dated 14-112008 of the assessee. The first argument given in the written submission was that the impounded ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 7 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad papers do not bear the signatures of the assessee and it cannot be presumed that notings recorded therein pertained to him. The main thrust of the argument was that the notings recorded on the pages are receipts and not income of the assessee. For this decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s. Shalin Builders in IT (SS) A No.99/Ahd/1998 dated 12-5-2003 was cited wherein 8% of the gross receipts were treated as net profit and as undisclosed income. It was also stated that the AO should have not adopted pick and choose policy and that the benefit of telescoping should have been allowed to the assessee, especially when the assessee had disclosed income aggregating to Rs.4,95,650/- in his return.
3. The learned CIT(A) considering the findings of the AO in the light of the submissions of the assessee and material on record partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. His findings in Para 8 to Para 12 in the impugned order are reproduced as under:
"8. After going through rival submissions I am of the view that the AO has analyzed each and every impounded paper and after verification and giving due opportunities to the appellant to produce documentary evidence in respect of the land purchased and date-wise evidence of receipts received on sale of flat / bungalow with their names and addresses proceeded with the additions. The assessee failed to give any documentary evidence in respect of the expenditure recorded in lacs in the impounded papers and neither any documentary evidence in respect of the sale receipts mentioned in these impounded pages.
The addition made with respect to Rs.42,97,627 recorded in Annexure -A - page 1(Annexure -1 of this order) as ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 8 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad cash received from various persons is well reasoned , and is upheld.
Addition made of Rs.22,06,000 on the basis of impounded page Annexure-A - page ~ and 10 (Annexure-
4 of this order) as cash used for purchase of Navrang land at Mehsana and cash received on its sale is also well reasoned and is upheld because date-wise details with evidence with regard to receipts from members of Rs.25,40,000 were not furnished neither purchase documents for purchase of land. The AO gave set off of Rs.3,34,000 of the undisclosed income declared in the return by the assessee and made addition of Rs.22,06,000 (Rs.25,40,000 - Rs.3,34,000) Similarly addition made of Rs.22,40,000 on the basis of impounded paper Annexure-A-page 14 (Annexure-5 of this order) which recorded unaccounted expenditure incurred in cash and unaccounted sale of 12 bungalows of Rs.25,62,200 of Prastha Project-I is well reasoned and after giving due opportunities to the assessee to produce documents of purchase of land and date-wise receipts of members. The AO gave set off of Rs.3,22,200 of the undisclosed income declared in the return by the assessee and made addition of Rs.22,40,000 (Rs.25,62,200 - Rs.3,22,200).
Similarly the addition of Rs.17,46,000 made on the basis of impounded paper Annexure-A-page 14 (back side) with respect to Prasthan Project is well reasoned because despite opportunities given the appellant was not able to give documentary evidence of land purchase neither of cash received of Rs.20,07,650. The AO gave set off of Rs.2,61,650 of the undisclosed income declared in the return by the assessee and made addition of Rs.17,46,000 (Rs.20,07,650 - Rs.2,61,650).
9. The appellant declared Rs.1 crore as his undisclosed income and agreed to pay taxes on the same, but in the return filed on 31.10.2005 subsequent to the survey ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 9 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad conducted on 18.3.2005, the appellant declared unaccounted income U/S.133A of Rs.l3,83,650 only. This fact also cannot be over-looked that during survey on 18.3.2005 the appellant in full consciousness disclosed income of Rs.1 crore for FY 2004-05 and stated that he was ready to pay tax on the said income, which he defined as Rs.75 lacs received on account of on money out of Prasthan Project Scheme at Ahmedabad and Rs.25 lacs received on account of on money from Navrang Bungalows Scheme hi Mehsana. Relevant page of Statement in Gujarati is enclosed as Annexure-2 of this order.
10. With respect to other additions of Rs.61,700 on account of payments made to labour contractors as per Annexure-A - page-5 (Annexure-3 of this order), addition of Rs.4,43,500 as payments made to Jay Corporation, Rajanibhai P. Patel and Chimanlal P. Patel (as per Annexure-A-page-17 of the impounded pages) and addition of Rs.67,000 as cash receipt not offered for tax as per Annexure-A-page 20, 1 am inclined to allow the benefit of telescoping in the additions confirmed above.
11. However, with respect to the addition made in respect of cash found during the survey of Rs.2,02,850 during the course of appellate proceedings it was explained that cash balance as on 31.3.2005 was Rs. 13,93,82, that the appellant had already disclosed huge amount of Rs.4,95,650 as his income, that he should be allowed benefit of telescoping for this, is not convincing because on the date of survey that is 18.3.2005 the appellant was not able to explain the cash found of Rs.2,02,850. What stood recorded in the books of accounts as on 31.3.2005 or 18.3.2005 is not material at this stage when on the spot during the survey the appellant could not explain this cash.
The addition of Rs.2,02,850 as unexplained cash found during survey is confirmed.
ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 10Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad The addition is therefore confirmed of Rs.1,06,92,477 ( Rs.42,97,627 + Rs.22,06,000 + Rs.22,40,000 + Rs.17,46,000 + Rs.2,02,850).
The appellant gets relief of Rs. 5,72,200 (Rs.l,12,64,677 - Rs.1,06,92,477 )
12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed."
4. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to translated copies of the seized documents (Annexure) referred to above and also referred to the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey on 18-03-2005 (PB-69) in which the assessee has given history of his business and the assets held by him and the surrender made by the assessee of Rs.1 Crores in the financial year under consideration. He has submitted that the assessee explained in his statement at that time that copies of the development agreements etc. were not available. He would supply the same later on. He has referred to another statement of the assessee (PB-65) dated 06-06-2005 in which the assessee explained the seized papers and it was explained that profit earned on various projects were distributed, therefore share of the assessee could only be assessed to tax which the assessee has already disclosed in the return of income. He has therefore, submitted that the additions are clearly unjustified. He has referred to PB-62 (seized documents) with regard to addition of Rs.42,97,627/- and submitted that the same did not belong to the assessee. He has submitted that the seized documents are dumb documents and the AO has taken the total ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 11 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad receipts as income of the assessee as per statement recorded during the course of survey. He has however, admitted that the assessee has not retracted from his statement recorded during the course of survey whereby Rs.1 Crores was surrendered for the purpose of taxation. He has referred to the translated copies of the seized papers (PB- 58, PB-59, PB-60 and PB-62). He has further submitted that income and expenses should be considered together and with regard to cash found during the course of survey he has explained that the assessee has already disclosed the income aggregating to Rs.4,95,650/- in the return of income. Therefore, telescoping benefit should be given to the assessee. He has further submitted that the seized documents did not bear signature of the assessee and the same are also not in the hand-writing of the assessee. No income is earned by the assessee out of the seized papers. The assessee has already disclosed the amount of Rs.13,39,318/- in the return of income. Therefore, no further addition is called for in the matter. He has submitted that all the seized papers were properly explained before the AO in the written submission; therefore, the additions should not have been made against the assessee. He has further submitted that at the most income may be assessed as against the total receipt which is already offered in the return of income and that entire statement should be considered. He has submitted that since the assessee explained all the seized papers, therefore, onus upon the assessee as per Section 292 C of the IT Act has been discharged. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that seized papers were found from the possession of the assessee and the assessee voluntarily ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 12 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad disclosed the undisclosed income of Rs.1 Crores in his statement recorded during the course of survey which was based on the seized documents. Therefore, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is justified. He has submitted that the assessee has not retracted from his statement and no evidences have been filed to explain the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A). He has submitted that since the assessee has not explained the seized papers, therefore, onus upon the assessee is not discharged. The learned DR submitted that additions may be confirmed and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and material on record. It is not in dispute that the seized documents referred to in the orders of the authorities below were impounded during the course of survey from the possession and premises of the assessee. Therefore, the recovery of the seized documents from the assessee's possession and control has not been disputed. Section 292 C of the IT Act is made applicable to the survey u/s 133A of the IT Act with effect from 01-06-2002. The same reads as under:
"292C. [(1)] Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 [or survey under section 133A], it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed--ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 13
Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad
(i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person;
(ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and
(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.] [(2) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer in accordance with the provisions of section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from the person referred to in clause
(a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-
section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.]"
According to the above provisions, where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things are found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search or survey under the IT Act, it may be presumed that such documents are belonging to such person and the contents of such books of the same are true. Therefore, burden is upon the assessee to explain the seized papers. In case, the assessee ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 14 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad disputes correctness of the seized documents found during the course of survey burden would be upon the assessee to explain the same through evidences or materials to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities. The assessee in his statement recorded during the course of survey on finding the seized documents from his possession voluntarily made the statement on 18-03-2005 and surrendered Rs.1 Crores as unaccounted income for the assessment year under appeal and agreed to pay the taxes. The assessee thereafter did not retract from his statement recorded during the course of survey. Thus, the documents found during the course of survey from the possession of the assessee remained unexplained. The Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hukum Chand Jain, 337 ITR 238 held as under:
"An admission is an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive. It is rebuttable. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to establish that the confession was involuntary and the statement was extracted under duress and coercion. The burden of proving that the statement was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon the assessee. Where the assessee claims that he made statement under a mistaken belief of fact or law, he should have applied for rectification to the authority who passed the order based upon his statement. The retraction should be made at the earlier opportunity and it should be established by producing contemporaneous record or evidence, oral or documentary, to substantiate the allegation that he was forced to make the statement involuntarily.
A search was conducted in the presence of the assessee and his three sons. The assessee was confronted with the documents seized during the search ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 15 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad proceedings, but he could not explain the source of income. Apart from documents and loose papers, cash and gold ornaments were also seized. The assessee could not explain the cash and jewellery and surrendered undisclosed income for the block period and expressed his willingness to pay the tax on the surrendered undisclosed income. The assessee signed the statement after regarding and understanding the statement without any coercion and the statement was counter-signed by his three sons. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and assessed the undisclosed income rateably allocating Rs.7,50,000 as undisclosed income of each assessee at the request of the assessee. The Assessing Officer included the amount of undisclosed income offered by the assessee besides specific additions based on material, which they could not explain. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount of undisclosed income offered in the block return was more than the specific additions made in the case of the assessee and his sons. The Tribunal held that the admission though an extremely important piece of evidence was not conclusive and it was open to the assessee to show that it was incorrect. Since the statement under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rebuttable and it was explained by the assessee at a later stage there was no infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal deleted the addition. On appeal:
Held, allowing the appeal, that the Assessing Officer had assigned cogent reasons for not accepting the retraction of the statement under section 132(4) by the assessee. Without meeting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation of the assessee the order was reversed and the explanation was accepted on a ground which was never agitated by the assessee before any of the forums. Thus, the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the confession made by him under section 132(4) was as a result of intimidation, ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 16 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad duress and coercion or that it was made as a result of mistake belief of law or facts."
5.1 The assessee instead of explaining the seized papers made out a case that only income may be computed against the receipts but the assessee failed to explain the statement made during the course of survey in which the assessee explained receipt of unaccounted income on account of on money from construction of various residential schemes and projects. The assessee has not produced any evidences of expenses paid which were recorded in the seized papers. Though the assessee claimed in subsequent statement about earning of the profit but no evidences have been filed to explain incurring of the expenses. No claim of profit was made in the initial statement recorded during the course of survey and the assessee never disputed voluntary statement made during the course of survey. The assessee never retracted from the statement made during the course of survey and has never made allegation against the revenue department for duress or coercion while making the statement during the course of survey. The assessee never alleged any mistake of fact or law while making surrender of Rs.1 Crores on account of unaccounted income. Additions are based on the seized papers which have not been explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted all undisclosed income in his statement recorded during the course of survey which pertained to the projects of the assessee. Since, the details of expenses have not been explained and no corroborative evidences in support of the explanation have been filed, therefore, the authorities below were justified in taking adverse view against the assessee. Since, no documentary ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 17 Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad evidences have been filed to explain the additions, therefore, reasoning of the AO in making the additions have not been rebutted through any evidences. Thus, onus upon the assessee to explain the seized papers has not been discharged. No telescoping benefit can be given to the assessee of the other additions because the additions are based on the seized papers which are supported by voluntary statement of the assessee surrendering Rs.1 Crores during the course of survey. Considering the above discussions and the fact that even during the course of arguments before us no documentary evidences have been filed to explain the above additions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the additions of Rs.42,97,627/-, Rs.22,06,000/-,Rs.22,40,000/- and Rs.17,46,000/-. The orders of the authorities below to that extent are confirmed and these grounds of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed.
6. However, as regards the cash found during the course of survey of Rs.2,02,850/-, the assessee had already disclosed the amount of Rs.4,95,650/- as his income. Therefore, such benefit shall have to be given to the assessee; otherwise, it would amount to double taxation. The orders of the authorities below to that extent are set aside and addition of Rs.2,02,850/- is deleted. Part of this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
7. No other point is argued or pressed.
ITA No.2631/Ahd/2009 18Narsingbhai Chunilal Patel VS DCIT (OSD), Cir-9, Ahmedabad
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court 20/10/2011 Sd/- Sd/-
(A. L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Lakshmikant/-
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File
BY ORDER
Dy. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad