TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 by assessee - revenue stated it to be after thought - Held that:- After the search, Dy.Commissioner of Investigation submitted that the assessee has furnished the complete details of the said declaration and explained that in the absence of any other transaction or earning of NIL income, there was no necessity to open a bank account and further, about the registration of the shares, it was explained that as per section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956, a company is not permitted to include the name of the Trust in the register because trusts are not required to be entered in the register. Due to this reason, the name which was earlier noted as shareholders remained the same, however through a Board Meeting it was resolved to acknowledge the change in the vesting of the shares - that a deeming provision has to be applied strictly, so that a fiction so created by a Statute should not cover within its ambits more than what is subscribed - deemed dividend need not be taxed in the hands of the assessee on an un-established hypothecation - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of sale of Ampad land on the basis of seized papers - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. - IT(ss)A Nos.590 to 595/A/2011 & 651,616, 626,627,637, 638/Ahd/11 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - SHRI MUKUL Kr.SHRAWAT, AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, JJ. Assessee(s) by: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Kartar Singh CIT-D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH : [A] Appeals of Shri Krupeshbhai N. Patel (a) A.Y.2006-07 IT(SS)A No. 590/Ahd/2011 (Assessee s appeal) This is an appeal filed by the Assessee arising from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 30.08.2011. 2. Grounds raised are hereby decided as follows. 3. Ground No.1 :- 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. 3.1. Ld.AR, at the outset, has informed that this is a technical ground in respect of certain additions which were alleged to be not based upon incriminating material, therefore the assessment u/s.153A of the Act was bad in law. When the Bench has confronted that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO there was no dispute that those units have been bought within a period of three months prior to the record date and sold within a period of nine months after such record date, therefore the loss to the extent of dividend received was admittedly ignored. The dispute was only in respect of the transaction referred at Sl.No.3 above. It was contended that the period as prescribed u/s.94(7) did not fall within that restriction. As per assessee, the record date was 20/01/2006, therefore the date prior to the record date was 19/01/2006, however the purchases have been made on 20/10/2005. Three months prior to the record date according to assessee was to be computed from 20/10/2005 upto 19/01/2006. The AO has held that three months prior to the record date starts from 20/10/2005 and the record date was 20/01/2006, therefore the purchases have been made within three months prior to the record date. The AO has therefore asked the assessee to explain as to why the shortterm capital loss should not be disallowed. The contention of the assessee about the computation of the period was not acceptable to the AO, so he has rejected the claim. With the result the loss to that extent was disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions in securities (7) Where (a) any person buys or acquires any securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record date; (b) such person sells or transfers (i) such securities within a period of three months after such date; or (ii) such unit within a period of nine months after such date; (c) the dividend or income on such securities or unit received or receivable by such person is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising to him on account of such purchase and sale of securities or unit, to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of dividend or income received or receivable on such securities or unit, shall be ignored for the purposes of computing his income chargeable to tax. 6.1. Likewise, in the case of Ashok Kumar Damani 138 TTJ 45 (Mum.), it was held that the applicability of section 94(7) comes into play when all the three conditions are fulfilled. We have examined the General Clauses Act section 9(1) which is also referred before us; relevant portion is reproduced below:- 19. For substantiating our claim we invite your kind attention the section 9(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The same is reproduced hereinabel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned loans as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. Before Assessing Officer from the side of the assessee, it was contested that a Trust was created on 16/11/2005. On creation of the Trust, an aggregate 5,12,000 equity shares of M/s.Amod Stampings Pvt.Ltd.were settled in favour of the Trust. After the said exclusion of shares, it was contested that the assessee did not hold more than 10% of the total voting power, therefore the assessee had no beneficial interest in the Trust. In this regard, facts are as under:- The assessee has submitted that he along with other family members has created the family trust Narharibhai S Patel Family s Children Trust as per Trust Deed dated 16th November, 2005 to meet the education and medical cost of the children of the family. By way of the said trust, the family members being shareholders i.e. Shri Krupesh Patel, Shri Navin Patel and Smt.Lalitaben Patel transferred respectively 1,56,000 shares, 2,00,000 shares and 1,56,000 shares of M/s.Amod Stampings P Ltd to the trust. Therefore, they did not hold the beneficial interest in the shares for more than 10%. The assessee has relied upon various case laws wherein it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y debarred from registering the trust as its member the name of the trust would never form part of the register of the members of the company, 43. However, the company has duly noted the existence of the trust and the beneficiary has been recorded in the minutes of the company. We invite your kind attention to page no. 175 of the paper book (refer note 3). Your kind office would appreciate that the existence of the trust has been duly noted and the number of share which are vested in the trust has also been noted. We therefore submit that the contention raised by the AO is again not as per law. 44. We may also like to mention that the trust has been duly executed on the stamp paper of valid denomination. Further, it has been duly notarized and therefore, its genuineness cannot be lightly ignored. Further, there is no law which requires registration of a private trust or approval of the private trust. 45. It may be noted that section 187C of the Companies Act, 1956, required every person to declare to a company that he does not have beneficial interest in the shares which as per the register of members are in his name. Further, a company was also required to file a declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... named as Narharibhai S. Patel Family s Children Trust was found. He has also noted that in a statement recorded u/s.132(4) dated 12/02/2009, the assessee has admitted to pay the tax. According to him, there was no independent evidence to demonstrate that a trust was created on 16/11/2005 and that the assessee as well as the other family members have settled 5,12,000 equity shares of M/s.Amod Stampings Pvt.Ltd. to the trust. He has concluded that there was no bank account of the Trust, no return of income was filed, there was no transfer of shares in the name of trust, hence merely a notarized trust-deed in isolation did not establish the existence of the trust. He has upheld the action of the AO that the assessee was covered within the parameters of section 2(22)(e) of IT Act. Being aggrieved, now the assessee is further before us in second appeal. 9. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr.Milin Mehta appeared. He has given the pattern of the shareholding by the individuals and by the trust as follows:- Name of the Registered Member No.of Shares % of shares held by individual to total no.of shares Shares held by Trust (beneficial owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore out of the clutches of the provisions of deemed dividend. 10. From the side of the Revenue, ld.DR Mr.Kartar Singh appeared and placed reliance on the findings of the AO CIT(A). He has pleaded that the theory of creation of trust was made after the search operation. The only proof with the assessee was a notarized stamp paper but there was no other supporting document. Since loan has been granted, therefore deemed dividend was rightly taxed in the hands of the assessee. 11. We have heard both the sides at some length. We have also perused the orders of the authorities below in the light of the compilation filed. As far as the provisions of the Act is concerned, now it has been streamlined that deemed dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power. As far as the question of applicability of deeming provisions are concerned, in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2011) 199 Taxman 341 (Delhi) it was held that the definition of dividend has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence of a declaration of trust claimed to be executed on 16/11/2005. Undisputedly, search was conducted on 11/02/2009. Revenue s main objection is that on the date of search the said document was not recovered. However, the vehement contention of the assessee is that this document has duly been executed on a stamp-paper of Rs.100/- on 16/11/2005. Further, it has also been strongly contested that the said document was duly notarized by a notary, who has authenticated it s execution. Rather it was alleged that no attempt was made by the Revenue to negate the validity of the said document. Revenue Department could have examined the veracity of the said document by investigating the records of the stamp vendor, as also the said notary. A legal document which is executed in the presence of a duly authorised person, i.e. notary, an appointed legal entity by Government of India, has to be acknowledged and to be accepted as true and correct unless and until proved otherwise. From the side of the assessee, it was strongly contested that to corroborate such declaration, reliance is also placed on the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s.Amod Stampings Pvt.Ltd. held o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1079991 680001 1209990 750001 Lalitaben N.Patel 156,000 200001 356000 Total 512,000 The shares of the Company are equity shares of Rs.10 each fully paid up and the same are referred to as the Settled Assets . 2. The Settlors shall act as the First Trustees, unless and until other persons are appointed as the Trustees in accordance with the Declaration and the respective Settlor shall continue to hold the part of the Settled Assets in their name, but shall not have any beneficial interest in the said Settled Asset and the beneficial interest in the said asset shall stand vested in the beneficiaries in accordance with this Declaration; 11.3. After the search, Dy.Commissioner of Investigation has also enquired about this issue and vide submission dated 22/04/2009, the assessee has furnished the complete details of the said declaration. In respect of few other queries, explanation of the assessee was that in the absence of any other transaction or earning of NIL income, there was no necessity to open a bank account. Further, about the registration of the shares, it was explained that as per section 153 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made hereinabove, while deciding assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, it stood allowed. For this year as well, this ground is allowed. Rest of the grounds are consequential in nature need no adjudication at this stage of appeal, hence this appeal is partly allowed. (c) A.Y.2007-08 IT(SS)A No. 594/Ahd/2011 (Revenue s appeal) 14. The only ground in this appeal is reproduced below:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of Rs.1,46,66,667/- on account of sale of Ampad land on the basis of seized papers. 14.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) dated 23/12/2010 are identical as narrated hereinabove that a search u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 11/02/2009. In respect of the above ground, the AO has noted that a document, i.e. page No.50 marked as Annexure BS-1 was seized from the office of the Company. Simultaneously, a page marked as Annexure A1 was seized from a locker, belonging to the assessee and Smt.Samita Patel. On the basis of the said page, AO has noted that the same was a cash receipt of Rs.524.17 lacs. In this regard, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted fact that the said Ampad land was subsequently sold in AY 2009-10 to various parties for a consideration of Rs.1,80,99,916/- on which short term capital gains has been offered to tax in AY 2009-10 including the undisclosed amount of Rs.1,74,72,333/- in the hands of the appellant. Thus, the same amount in respect of Ampad land has been disclosed by the appellant in AY 2009-10 pertaining to the year in which transfer / sale of the land took place whereas the addition has been made by the AO in AY 2007-08 / AY 2008-09. Thus, this is definitely a case of double taxation of the same income in different Assessment Years. 15.1. Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the IT Act and opined that through the said statement it was clearly established that the said amount of Rs.524.17 lacs was received in respect of AMPAD land from Mr.Kanubhai Patel on various dates falling within the AYs 2007-08 2008-09, however, that could not be materialised and the amount was returned to said Mr.Kanubhai Patel in AY 2009-10, that too along with interest of Rs.18 lacs. Ld.CIT(A) has therefore agreed that the impugned amount was not required to be taxed in AYs 2007-08 and 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les in AY 2009-10 and the gains arising therefrom were treated as income for AY 2009-10. e. Regarding the transaction made with Mr.Kanubhai Patel, it is submitted that Mr.Kanubhai Patel from Surat had approached the Appellant in a property fair and had expressed his willingness to purchase the aforesaid Ampad Land and accordingly had paid an amount of Rs.524.17 lacs in cash on various dates. f. Mr.Kanubhai Patel was not closely known to the Appellant. As Mr.Kanubhai Patel failed to convert the land from agricultural land into non-agricultural land the transaction was cancelled and the amount received from him was returned back. g. It may be mentioned that seized material Page 1 of Annexure A-1 itself shows that the amount had been paid back along with interest of Rs.18.00 lacs (refer page 77). h. The fact that the amount was paid back is duly reflected in the seized material found during the course of search by the Department. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that the amount was actually paid back. i. As per law since the transaction did not materialize the same cannot be treated as income of the Appellant. However, to cover up the discrepancy the Appellant had declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is dismissed as infructuous. (f) A.Y.2008-09 IT(SS)A No. 595/Ahd/2011 (Revenue s appeal) 20. Grounds are reproduced below:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of Rs.28,05,666/- (Rs.28,05,666 in the case of Shri Navinbhai N.Patel) on account of sale of Ampad land on the basis of seized papers. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of Rs.65,83,830/- (Rs.1,69,27,845 in the case of Shri Navinbhai N.Patel) on account of Gift received in kind. 20.1. As far as ground No.1 is concerned, a view has already been taken hereinabove, therefore, following the same this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 21. Apropos to Ground No2, it was noted by the AO vide order u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) dated 23/12/2010 that the assessee had shown a gift in kind of equity shares of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. It was noted that through a declaration of gift-deed dated 07/02/2008 and 17/03/2008 respectively 3400 shares and 2300 shares were gifted. According to AO, the donor namely, Shri Jayant Sanghavi is not related to the assessee. The AO has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of the AO in holding that the sale consideration of the Gotri land is Rs.22.61 crores instead of claim of the Appellant that the sale consideration is Rs.13.62 crores [Rs.10.62 crores as per books + Rs.3.00 crores declared during search] and making consequential addition of Rs.4,49,50,000, being share of the Appellant in the income. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in holding that the total value of gift received in kind by the family members including the Appellant amounting to Rs.4.70 crores is required to be taxed in the hands of the Appellant and Shri Navinbhai N Patel on substantive basis on the ground that the gift received by the Appellant including other family members represent part of sale consideration of Gotri land and thereby confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.2.35 crores in the case of the Appellant [equal amount is added in the case of Shri Navinbhai N Patel making total addition of Rs.4.70 corres]. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that the transaction of gift is an independent transaction and not related to the transaction of sale of Gotri land. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land as it was. From the side of the assessee in support of the said contention an Affidavit of one Shri Rasik Padaria, broker, dated 08/03/2010 was filed. In the said Affidavit, he has deposed that the said offers were made by him in respect of Gotri land. According to AO, it was nothing but a make believe story. In his opinion, there was no evidence that the documents were merely an offer by Shri Rasik Padaria. The notings in the said documents had clearly mentioned the cash component and the cheque component. As per AO, the cheque component was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee, as evident from the copy of account of Smt.Vishakha Sanghavi, purchaser of Gotri land. According to AO, the simultaneous transaction of unaccounted money, that too recorded on those loose-papers, had to be believed. The AO has noted that in both the pages the area of land was mentioned as 4,51,419 square feet and the rate mentioned has two components, i.e. Rs.250/- per square foot in cheque and Rs.251/- per sq.ft in cash. AO has also noted that the dates of receipts as appearing in the said loose-papers were beyond doubt, therefore the component of cash was correct and the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gain on sale of Gotri land was taxed in the hands of the assessee at Rs.4,49,50,000/- by the A.O. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried before the first appellate authority. 27. The assessee has reiterated that the seized papers have reflected only an offer for purchase of land by the prospective buyers. An Affidavit of Mr.Rasik Padaria has also been referred. Ld.CIT(A) has described that the relevant seized paper had two columns, one is having heading 250 relating to the cheque payment in respect of the Gotri land . The payment under the heading 250 had exactly tallied with the amounts noted in the books of account of the assessee. Next, on the other column of the same seized paper, there was a heading 251 which related to the cash receipts in respect of the same land. That total area was 4,51,419 sq.ft. and the CIT(A) has interpreted that the sale consideration was Rs.250 per sq.ft. by way of cheque and Rs.251/- per sq.ft. was in cash. According to ld.CIT(A) there was mention of the total sale consideration of Rs.22.61 crores. He has concluded that once the assessee has accepted one part of the document and recorded the receipts in the books of accounts which were m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no transaction factually took place. He has emphasized that barring these two small papers nothing was found or any other document was recovered from the assessee through which it could be proved that the assessee had received extra consideration in respect of the Gotri land. The said amount of Rs.3 crores was offered merely to co-operate with the Revenue Department. As far as the gift of shares was concerned, there was no link or connection with the sale of Gotri land. There were copies of gift-deeds and the donor had confirmed that the gifts were made out of love and affection, therefore gift transaction being an independent transaction must not be connected with the sale of Gotri land. 29. From the side of the Revenue, ld.DR Mr.Kartar Singh appeared and reiterated the view taken by the AO and CIT(A). Intensely he has pleaded that the entire unrecorded transaction was unearthed consequent upon the search operation therefore the stories concocted thereafter ought to be rejected. 30. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we have noted that the assessee has purchased the Gotri land through nine sale-deeds during the period of 27th July-2004 to 9th of January-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Keeping this principle in mind, the IT Act has incorporated section 132(4A) of IT Act which reads as follows:- Search and seizure Section 132.(4A) 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, it may be presumed (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. 31.2. This section thus supports the contention of the assessee that the contents of the document should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en for the deponent to show that it was based upon an evidence and not merely a bald offer. Therefore, an offer should be led by a corroborative evidence and in the present case the said difference in the amount could be witnessed by the figure mentioned in one of the seized paper. 31.3. There is one more reason given by the assessee to accept the sale consideration at Rs.13.70 crores (Rs.10.70 crores documented sale consideration + Rs.3 crores offered amount) because on enquiry, it was found that the stamp duty is levied for that area on a lower price of sale consideration. The assessee has therefore contended that the sale consideration now offered of Rs.13.70 crores is not only adequate but also higher than the sale consideration as prevailed during that period of that locality. Ld.AR has thus argued that the total amount thus disclosed by the assessee has commensurated with the official sale rate of that locality. 31.4. Our attention has also been drawn on those two loose-papers for the purpose that both were unsigned and undated by the parties of sale, i.e. vendor and vendee. Those papers did not suggest even remotely that the transactions recorded therein were actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an offer which was made to the assessee. Finally the land was sold on the price near to one of said amount of the offer made by one of the buyer through a broker. The document is also suggesting that certain options were available to the assessee and those options were not acceptable. The assessee has noted on those papers that variation in the price was expected. Since the said noting was found in existence when the paper was seized, such a noting cannot be ignored. That noting is rather a proof which supports the contentions of the assessee that the figures were nothing but certain offers which were made in respect of the Gotri land. Even the statements which were recorded by the Revenue Department have also demonstrated that since inception the assessee s stand was that the purpose of writing three figures or three rates itself has established that the offers were made in respect of the same land. Rather, the case of the assessee is that the three rates conclusively suggest that some negotiation has happened and that negotiation was pertaining to the pre-conditions of sale. It is not the case that only one rate was found noted on a piece of paper showing the documented sale co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.4,49,50,000/- in the case of Shri Navin Patel in AY 2009-10 being the two were owners of the land as short term capital gain, and out of the same Rs.2,14,50,000/- each is added on substantive basis and the balance of Rs.2,35,00,000/- each is added on protective basis. Being aggrieved the Assessee is before us. 33. Ld.CIT(A) has noted that Shri Jayant Sanghavi, donor, husband of Smt. Vishaka Sanghavi (purchaser of Gotri land), had donated shares of M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries during the period of February/March- 2008. As per ld.CIT(A), the Gotri land was sold in April-2008. Ld.CIT(A) has opined that Shri Jayant Sanghavi was not related to the assessee and there was no occasion for making such gifts. He was of the view that the act of receiving gifts in February/March-2008 and after one month the sale of Gotri land was effected therefore both can be said to be connected transaction and not totally independent trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an arrive at the figure of 22.70 crores but we have already held that there was no evidence on record to conclusively establish that the said amount was the actual sale consideration, hence we have held that the sale consideration was nothing but 10.70 corres plus the amount of consideration of Rs.3 crores which was offered for tax purpose. Once we have already fixed a sale consideration, therefore the Revenue s such allegation is hereby dismissed. Before us, an another plank of argument was that the gift being in the form of shares, therefore the gift has been made in kind, hence not to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. But this argument has no substance due to the reason that it had become redundant in the light of the view taken and the AO has also not separately assessed the impugned gift in the hands of the assessee. We therefore leave this argument without adjudication since it has become redundant. The outcome of the above discussion is that since it was not a part of the sale consideration, therefore barring for the year under consideration, it was not required to be added and now the present position is that the impugned amount even not taxable in the hands of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 for A.Y.2007- 08(supra). Therefore, following the findings contained therein, this appeal is partly allowed. (k) A.Y.2007-08 IT(SS)A No. 626/Ahd/2011 (Revenue s appeal) 38. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 02.09.2011. 38.1 The sole ground in this appeal is identical in verbatim as was in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel in IT(SS)A No.594/Ahd/2011 for A.Y.2007-08(supra). Therefore, following the findings contained therein, this appeal is dismissed. (l) A.Y.2007-08 CO No. 20/Ahd/2012 (by Assessee) 39. A view has already been taken while deciding hereinabove the Revenue s appeal, therefore this cross objection has become infructuous, hence dismissed. (m) A.Y.2008-09 IT(SS)A No. 627/Ahd/2011 (Revenue s appeal) 40. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 02.09.2011. 40.1 Both grounds in this appeal are identical in verbatim as were in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Krupeshbhai N.Patel in IT(SS)A No.595/Ahd/2011 for A.Y.2008-09 (supra). Therefore, following the findings contained therein, this appeal is dismissed. (n) A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
