9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this technical issue is subjudice before the Special Bench, then ld.AR in the alternative has suggested not to adjudicate this ground rather to proceed on the merits of the case. In view of the concession expressed by Ld.AR Mr.Milin Mehta for not pressing this ground; as also Ld.DR Mr.Kartar Singh has no objection if decide the quantum additions, resultantly we hereby dismiss this ground being not pressed and proceed hereinbelow. 4. Ground No.2 :- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing short term capital loss of Rs.22,38,207 (Rs.21,84,395 in the case of Shri Navinbhai N.Patel) invoking provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 4.1. Facts in brief as emerged form the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 23/12/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 were that a search u/s.132 was carried out on a group named as "Amod Group of cases" on 11/02/2009. Consequent thereupon a proceeding u/s.153A was initiated. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had sold "mutual fund units". The assessee has claimed short-term capital loss on sale of mutual funds. The AO had proceeded to examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in was enhanced. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority. 5. The basic contention before ld.CIT(A) was that the language used in section 94(7) of the Act prescribes "prior to the record date". According to the argument of the assessee the word used "to" signifies that the record date, i.e. 20/01/2006 is to be computed in the following manner:- From To Month 21-12-2005 20-1-2006 1 21-11-2005 20-12-2005 2 21-10-2005 20-11-2005 3 5.1. The assessee has referred section 9(1) of General Clauses Act 1897. However, ld.CIT(A) has taken a view that it is important to note that the language of the section is "prior to" and not only "to" therefore, the word "prior" should not be ignored. The ld.CIT(A) has also given a second reason for affirming the action of the AO that the units of Birla Sunlife have also been sold undisputedly within a period of nine months of the "record date". According to him, all the conditions as prescribed under section 94(7) are to be cumulatively satisfied, therefore the disallowance was held as justified. 6. We have heard both the sides and also carefully perused the relevant provisions. Ld.AR has reiterated the provisions of Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to". (2) This section applies also to all Central Acts made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all the Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887." 6.2. Even if the General Clauses Act is to be applied, then we are not convinced that "record date" has no significance because that particular date is purposely incorporated in the Statute and then the word "prior" has also significance. The Statute is not saying that any unit is to be acquired within a period of three months to the record date, but it says that any person buys or acquires any unit within a period of three months prior to the record date. According to us, units have been purchased within a period of three months prior to the record date, therefore one of the condition applies on such transaction. Then it is not in dispute that the sale was made on 06/02/2006, i.e. within the period of nine months from the record date, i.e. 20/01/2006, therefore within clause(b)(ii) of section 94(7) of IT Ac. In the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as received the loans. I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee but the same is not found acceptable." 7.2. After discussion, the AO has taken a stand that the creation and the existence of the Trust was an after-thought. He has concluded that the assessee along with family members was holding shares of M/s.Amod Stampings Pvt.Ltd. which was more than 10% of the holding, therefore deemed dividend to that extent has to be taxed. 8. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority. The assessee has rebutted the action of the AO on the following points:- "Validity of Trust & its shareholding: 39. The AO in the assessment order has stated that the existence of the trust was an afterthought and therefore should be rejected. We submit, that the trust existed on and from 16-11-2005. The existence of the trust was duly noted by the company in its minutes of meeting and also the trust has been formed by executing a valid document. We therefore submit that the comments of the AO are required to be ignored. 40. The AO has also stated that the trust has no bank account, no balance sheet is prepared and that the shares are not registered in its name. We submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirement at present to declare beneficial interest, etc. Therefore, such beneficial interest is not declared in the register of the Company or the Registrar of the Companies. 46. Therefore, as per the register of members of the company, the shares are still in the name of the respective shareholders and there is no note taken of their divestment of beneficial interest. 47. It is submitted that the existence of the trust is proved by way of a legally executed document. The document is notarized by a government appointed notary on a date which is much prior to the date of search. The said document is part of the minutes of the company and part of a meeting which is held much prior to the date of search. All these evidences are being ignored, including the Evidence of a notarized documents, merely because of a suspicion or surmises or Conjectures. There is no evidence with the AO to hold that the trust is bogus, that the signature of the notary is bogus, that the company's minutes are falsified, etc. It is also submitted that the AO has not brought any evidence on record, either found during the course of search or even as a result of post search investigation, which goes :to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,000 10.00% 18.80% 1,06,66,471 Lalitaben Patel 1,94,000 9.70% 1,56,000 7.80% 17.50% 4,60,273 AY 2007-08 Krupesh Patel 59,100 2.96% 1,56,000 7.80% 10.76% 3,93,74,965 Navin Patel 15,100 0.76% 2,00,000 10.00% 10.76% 3,48,26,894 Lalitaben Pate 83,000 4.15% 1,56,000 7.80% 11.95% Nil Smitaben Patel (Note 2) 2,15,100 10.76% - - - 76,378 Total [Note : 1) Total number of shares having voting power is 20,00,000 equity shares. 2) Not in Appel.] 8,81,71,003 9.1. Ld.AR has argued that the Revenue had arbitrarily clubbed the shareholding of the trust along with the share-holdings of the individuals. He has emphasized that the trust was formed on 16/11/2005. He has drawn our attention on page 167 of the paper-book containing a photocopy of "declaration of trust" on a stamp paper of Rs.100 which was stated to be dated 16/11/2005. Ld.AR has contested that in total 5,12,000 shares were settled by the settlers for the benefit of the beneficiaries and that document is duly notarized. Ld.AR has drawn our attention on page 175 of the paper-book, i.e. Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of Amod Stampings Pvt.Ltd. dated 21/12/2005. He has info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. In an admitted case, under normal circumstances, such loans or advances given to shareholders do not qualify as dividend. Only because of a legal fiction as created u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act the scope of the term "dividend" has been enlarged. The Hon'ble Court has further clarified that the legal fiction do not extend to "shareholders". The loans or advances given under the conditions specified under this section would amount to dividend and that fiction has to stop at that place. According to the Delhi High Court, the said fiction do not extend further for broadening the concept of shareholder, that too by a legal fiction. If the intention of the legislature was to tax such loans or advances as "deemed dividend" at the hands of a "deeming shareholder", then the legislature would have inserted deeming provision in respect of shareholders as well. A shareholder should not be presumed by way of such deeming provision. In the light of the above decision, next in line, is the order of the Respected Special Bench in the case of Bhaumic Colour 118 ITD pg 1 (Mum.) wherein it was clarified that to attract the provisions of this section the payment must be made to a person who is shareho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest in these shares would be those of the trust so settled and its beneficiaries." 11.2. Our attention has also been drawn on the terms through which the settlors have settled the shares in favour of the beneficiaries vide N.S.Patel Family's Children Trust - DELCARATION OF TRUST dated 16th day of Novermber-2005 as follows:- "WHEREAS i) the Settlors are members of the family of Late Shri Narharibhai Somabhai Patel and are presently shareholders of one company by the name of M/s.Amod Stampings Private Limited, a Company formed and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and and having its registered office at Gujarat Spun pipe Compound, P.O. Samiala, Padra Road, Vadodara - 391 410 )"the Company"); ii) the Settlors are desirous of ensuring that the children of the family, who are presently pursuing education or are proposing to settle in business, do not have any scarcity of funds for their future pursuits, primarily being education or commencing new business; iii) the Settlors have decided, for natural love and affection, to settle some of the shares of the Company upon a trust for the benefit of the children of the family to be governed by the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of L.H. Sugar Factory 125 ITR 293 (SC) that no authority can presume something which is not envisaged in the Act. A documentary evidence is thus nothing but affirmation of the existence of a fact and, therefore, merely on preponderance of probabilities such a documentary evidence should not be rejected. We, therefore, conclude that in the absence of any contrary material specially when we are dealing with a fiction created by a Statute, a fictional income, i.e. deemed dividend need not be taxed in the hands of the assessee on an un-established hypothecation. We hereby direct to delete the addition. Ground is allowed. 12. Rest of the grounds are consequential in nature thus need no adjudication at this stage of appeal, hence this appeal is partly allowed. (b) A.Y.2007-08 - IT(SS)A No. 591/Ahd/2011 (Assessee's appeal) 13. Grounds raised are hereby decided as follows:- 1.The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not restricting the assessment/addition, based on the material found during the course of search. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs.3,93,74,965 (R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an amount of Rs.3.50 crore in cash. The assessee has informed that the cash component of Rs.3.50 crore shall be disclosed. Before AO, few more facts have been narrated that the transaction was ultimately completed in A.Y. 2009-10 and, therefore, the 'on-money' is to be taxed along with the said amount of sale transaction. It was informed that the transfer of AMPAD land was affected in the relevant A.Y.2009-10. However, the AO was not convinced and he has held that the sum which was found noted in a particular financial year should be assessed as undisclosed income in that very financial year. In the result, an amount of Rs.1,46,66,667/- was taxed as income for the year under consideration in respect of AMPAD land. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried before the first appellate authority. 15. After hearing the submission, ld.CIT(A) has noted that the entire amount of Rs.524.17 lacs was disclosed by the assessee alongwith other co-owners in A.Y. 2009-10 as a "short-term capital gain". Ld.CIT(A) has noted certain facts as under:- "10.1. It is a fact that the entire amount of Rs.524.17 lakhs has been disclosed by the appellant and other co-owners in AY 2009- 10 as short term capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer of AMPAD land. The transactions which were found recorded in the said seized document have mentioned the name of one Mr.Kanubhai Patel. The AO has added the amount which was alleged to be assessed for AY 2007-08 and part of it, respectively for AY 2008-09. But one of the fact which has a direct adverse impact on the stand taken by the AO was that in a statement recorded u/s.132(4) of IT Act dated 12/02/1999, i.e. during the search operation, clarified the position of capital gain which was disclosed in AY 2009-10. As far as the quantum of the amount is concerned, there was no dispute. The only dispute is thus about the year of taxability. The admitted factual position is that the entire amount of Rs.524.17 lacs was shown as undisclosed income in AY 2009- 10. However, the AO was not satisfied and taxed the same in two assessment years proportionately, i.e. AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09. The salient features favouring assessee, submitted before us, are as under:- "a. The land under consideration belonged to Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel, Shri Navinbhai N.Patel and Smt.Varshaben S.Patel b. The land was purchased in A.Y. 2007-08 and was sold in AY 2009-10. The Appellant had filed the copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ground of the Revenue is dismissed. (d) A.Y.2007-08 - CO No. 12/Ahd/2012 (by Assessee) 18. Ground read as under:- 1. Without prejudice and without admitting that no addition can be made in AY 2007-08 in respect of income from sale of Ampad land, the AO may be directed to grant consequential relief in AY 2009-10, in case, addition of Rs.1,46,66,667/- is confirmed in AY 07-08. 18.1. A view has already been taken while deciding hereinabove the Revenue's appeal, therefore this cross objection has become infructuous, hence dismissed. (e) A.Y.2008-09 - IT(SS)A No. 592/Ahd/2011 (Assessee's appeal) 19. Grounds raised are as follows:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad ["the CIT(A)] erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Baroda ["the AO"] in not restricting the assessment / additions based on the material found during the course of search. 2. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in giving adverse remarks in respect of the Gift received in the form of shares. 19.1 These grounds are general in nature and one of the ground, i.e. ground No.2 has not raised the grievance from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferred "in kind" hence not to be taxed for the year under consideration. We hereby affirm the factual as well as the legal finding of the CIT(A), hence this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal is dismissed. (g) A.Y.2008-09 - CO No. 13/Ahd/2012 (By Assessee) 24. Grounds read as under: 1. Without prejudice and without admitting that no addition can be made in AY 2008-09 in respect of income from sale of Ampad land, the AO may be directed to grant consequential relief in AY 2009-10 in case addition of Rs.28,05,666/- is confirmed in AY 08- 09. 2. Without prejudice to Grounds 3 and 4 of AY 2009-10, in case, the addition of gift of Rs.65,83,830/- (Rs.1,69,27,845 in the case of Shri Navinbhai N.Patel) is confirmed in 2008-09, the AO may be directed to grant consequential relief in the AY 2009-10. 24.1. The cross-objector vide above two grounds has simply asked to give consequential direction. At present, for the Asstt. Year under consideration, the consequential direction as suggested is not required, hence these two grounds of the cross-objection have become redundant, therefore dismissed. Resultantly, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. (h) A.Y.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 23/12/2010 are that the assessee along with one Shri Navin Patel is the owner of "Gotri Land", both having equal shares. It was noted that the said land was sold to Smt.Vishakha Sanghavi. The consideration was stated to be Rs.10.62 crores. The Revenue Department consequent upon the search has unearthed two loose papers, one from the bank locker, and the other from the office. Due to the said seized document, the assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs.3crores received in cash. The AO has scanned and printed those documents in the assessment order itself and marked as Annexure BS-1 and Annexure AS-1. These pages have been scrutinized by the AO and he has noted that there was a noting of two figures, i.e. Rs.22.61 crores and Rs.14.75 crores. He has also noted that those transactions, as recorded in those seized documents, was related to the sale of Gotri land. The assessee's stand since inception was that the amounts recorded and the dates mentioned was only an offer for the purchase of Gotri land. The assessee has explained that several offers were invited considering the conversion of land either from agriculture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has gifted the shares. The value of all the shares gifted was found to be Rs.4.70 crores. The AO has treated those gifts as not genuine. As per AO, the impugned gifts were part of the "on-money" consideration. Accordingly the total payment of on-money received by the owners of this land other than consideration in the form of gift is Rs.4.29 Crores [22.61 Crores - 13.62 Crores - 4.7 Crores]. Accordingly, Rs.2,14,50,000/- is added in the case of Shri Krupesh Patel and Rs.2,14,50,000/- in the case of Shri Navin Patel in AY 2009-10 being the two were the equal co- owners of the land, as short term capital gain on substantive basis. Since the other members of the family who have received the gifts have not admitted that the gifts are not genuine and have not offered the same to tax, the balance of Rs.2,35,00,000/- (on account of addition of Rs.4,70,00,000/- made on account of gift as discussed above) is added in the case of Shri Krupesh Patel and Rs.2,35,00,000/- in the case of Shri Navin Patel in AY 2009-10 being the two were owners of the land as short term capital gain on protective basis. To sump up total amount of Rs.4,49,50,000/- is added in the case of Shri Krupesh Patel and Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of IT Act, ld.CIT(A) has also been rejected on the same ground that the gifts in question were part of the undisclosed sale consideration of Gotri land. However, he has opined that the year of transfer was AY 2009-10, therefore to be taxed in the said year as per section 45(1) of IT Act. He has concluded that the total gift amount of Rs.4.70 crores received by the assessee and his family members was towards undisclosed sale consideration. The same was taxed in AY 2009-10 amounting to Rs.4.70 crores in the hands of assessee and Shri Navin N.Patel, i.e. respectively Rs.2,35,00,000/- each on protective basis. The result of the said conclusion was that an addition of Rs.65,83,830/- made in AY 2008-09 being non-genuine gift, was directed not to be taxed in AY 2008-09. 28. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr.Milin Mehta appeared and contested that the Revenue Authorities have not correctly appreciated a noting made on the said seized document which is going to settle the controversy. The said noting was written by Mr.Krupesh N.Patel addressed to Mr.Navin N.Patel "As per discussion with them none of the above option is acceptable. Variation in price is also expected. Please Discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three situations which were claimed to be connected with the conversion of non-agricultural land either for commercial purposes or for residential purposes. Those figures were merely proposed figures and not the actual details of consideration receipt. For this submission, our attention has been drawn on a noting on page number 4 (Annexure A-1) which was claimed to have been written by Mr.Krupesh N.Patel addressed to Mr.Navin N.Patel. The wording of the said noting were "As per discussion with them none of the above option is acceptable. Variation in price is also expected. Please Discuss". In the light of this noting, which was found written when the impugned loose paper was seized , it is intensely argued that the very existence of this comment by it self proves the true character of the loose paper i.e. it was an offer/ proposal simply quoting various rates for the purpose of sale of the said land. 31.1. In respect of the above noting, the vehement contention of the assessee is that the said noting was found at the time of seizure of the paper. The presumption is that whatever is noted on the seized document should be correct and truthfully state the existence of the fact or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to the negotiations and the proposed offers were made from the broker keeping in mind the eventuality of conversion of land. The maximum price offered of Rs.22 crores but that was subject to conversion of agricultural land to commercial use. But the fact was that the land was partly converted into N.A. There was an alternate offer in case the entire land is not converted. That alternate offer was also noted in one of the said two seized papers, i.e. Rs.14.75 crores. Since the condition of complete conversion was not fulfilled hence the sales were not effected on the said proposed amounts. As per the notings on those two papers, there was a time limit prescribed upto 31/05/2009. There was some other time limitation and hence, it was decided to execute the sale for a sum of Rs.10.70 crores. The assessee has accepted the said figure of Rs.13.70 crores as noted in the said loosepaper. Since the amount which was documented was only Rs.10.70 crores, therefore the balance of Rs.3 crores was offered and disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has therefore pleaded that the said offer being based upon the seized material should have been accepted by the Revenue Department. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural land either for residential purpose or for commercial purpose. During the course of hearing, a question has been raised by us that why this Affidavit be not treated as a self-serving document. In reply, ld.AR has pleaded that although the said Affidavit could be treated as a selfserving statement but such an assertion that to through an Affidavit should have been verified by the Revenue Department, appropriately cross-examining the said deponent. Indeed, the Revenue Department has not cross-examined Mr.Rasik Padaria. 31.6. Our attention has also been drawn on the statement recorded u/s.131 / 132(4) dated 06/03/2009 wherein vide question No.24, the Revenue Officer has shown the said page to the assessee and in reply the assessee has answered that those papers were in respect of two proposals for Gotri land. The assessee has also informed that the deed could not be materialized. It was also informed that when the said paper was recovered from the locker, even at that time it was stated that the assessee got proposals from the perspective buyers in respect of Gotri land. The cheques mentioned have also matched with the amount w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that those gifts were made by the husband of Mrs.Vishakha Sanghavi. The AO has thus held that the gifts were in lieu of the unaccounted sale consideration, hence given a finding as under:- "During the assessment proceedings of various family members of this group it was found that they have received gift of shares of M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries limited from the spouse of the person to whom this land has been sold. The values of such gifts cumulatively in the hands of these persons were of Rs.4.70 crore. These gifts have been treated as not genuine and addition of the same has been made in the respective hands for detailed reasoning mentioned therein, and it has also been held that the said gifts are part of the "on money" consideration for sale of this land. Accordingly the total payment of on money received by the owners of this land other than consideration in the form of gift is Rs.4.29 Crores [22.61 Crores - 13.62 Crores - 4.7 Crores]. Accordingly, Rs.2,14,50,000/- is added in the case of Shri Krupesh Patel and Rs.2,14,50,000/- in the case of Shri Navin Patel in AY 2009-10 being the two were owners of the land as short term capital gain on substantive basis. Since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 on substantive basis equally in the hands of both the above two appellants. He has given a direction that the addition of Rs.65,83,830/- taxed in AY 2008-09 is to be deleted. Being aggrieved, both the sides are in appeal(s) before us in respective assessment years. 34. We have heard both the sides. We have also perused the documents related to this ground. We have found that on 7/2/2008 & 17/3/2008, Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel has received 3400 shares and 2300 shares of M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries from Shri Jayant S.Sanghavi. In this regard, a declaration of gift is on record. Likewise, on 7/2/2008 and 17/3/2008 Shri Jayant S.Sanghavi has received respectively 8700 & 5950 number of shares of M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries from Shri Jayant S.Sanghavi. It was not in dispute that Shri Jayant S.Sanghavi is the husband of Smt.Vishakha Sanghavi. Further, it is also not in dispute that Mrs.Vishakha Sanghavi purchased Gotri land in April-2008. However, as per the details of the sales executed in respect of Gotri land, further we have noted that several sale documents were executed during the period starting from April-2008 upto July-2008. With this brief background, we have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under (in the case of Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel):- (i) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.590/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed. (ii) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.591/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 is partly allowed. (iii)Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.592/Ahd/2001, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. (iv) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.593/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed. (v) Revenue's appeal, IT(SS)A No.594/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed. (vi) Revenue's appeal, IT(SS)A No.595/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. (vii) Assessee's CO No.12/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed. (viii) Assessee's CO No.13/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. [B] Appeals of Shri Navinbhai N. Patel (i) A.Y.2006-07 - IT(SS)A No. 651/Ahd/2011 (Assessee's appeal) 36. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee arising from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 02.09.2011. 36.1. All the Grounds are identical in verbatim as were in the case of Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel in IT(SS)A No.590/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 2006- 07(supra). Therefore, following the findings contained in the case of Krupeshbhai N.Patel, this appeal is partly allowed. (j) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(p) A.Y.2009-10 - IT(SS)A No.638/Ahd/2011 (Assessee's appeal)
43. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee arising from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 02.09.2011.
43.1 Grounds in this appeal are identical in verbatim as were in the case of Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel in IT(SS)A No.593/Ahd/2011 for A.Y.2009- 10 (supra). Therefore, following the findings contained therein, this appeal is partly allowed.
44. We summarize the result as under (in the case of Shri Navinbhai N.Patel):-
(i) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.651/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed.
(ii) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.616/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 is partly allowed.
(iii) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.637/Ahd/2001, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed.
(iv) Assessee's appeal, IT(SS)A No.638/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed.
(v) Revenue's appeal, IT(SS)A No.626/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed.
(vi) Revenue's appeal, IT(SS)A No.627/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed.
(vii) Assessee's CO No.20/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed.
(viii) Assessee's CO No.21/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
