The ITO, Ward-1(1),, Bhavnagar v. Shri Dhirajlal Ganeshbhai Patel, Bhavnagar

ITA 3468/AHD/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 346820514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN ACSPK7559C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3468/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-1(1),, Bhavnagar
Respondent Shri Dhirajlal Ganeshbhai Patel, Bhavnagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 27-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 27-10-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 21-10-2008
Judgment Text
ITA.NO.3468/AHD/08 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH B BB B BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :27-10-10 DRAFTED ON: 27-10-10 ITA NO. 3468 /AHD/ 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) NAKU BAUG PALACE BHAVNAGAR. VS. SHRIDHIRAJLAL GANESHBHAI PATEL PLOT NO.54 VIJAYNAGAR BHAVNAGAR. PAN/GIR NO. : ACSPK 7559 C (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN SR. D.R. RE SPONDENT BY: SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX AHMEDABAD DATED 14-7-2008. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF `.1 30 50 000/-ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I. T. ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF `. 95 LAKHS AS GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS UNCLE BEING HALF SHARE IN A FLAT IN RADHA KRISHNA COOPERATIVE HOUSIN G SOCIETY (VALKESHWAR) MUMBAI WHILE AN ENTRY OF `.1 30 50 000/- WAS REFLEC TED ON ASSET SIDE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-3-2004. IN RESPONSE TO THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1- 11-2007 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS CREDITED ` .95 LAKHS STATING THEREIN THAT ONE HALF OF THE PRICE OF FLAT OF `.1 90 00 000 /- WAS GIFT FROM HIS UNCLE AND THAT HE HAS SHOWN IN THE ASSET SIDE OF BALANCE SHEE T THE PRICE OF THE FLAT OF HIS OWN SHARE AT `.1 30 50 000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE PAG E 2 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 OF RECEIPT OF GIFT NOR ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE ENTR Y OF `.1 30 50 000/- THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ADDED AN AMOU NT OF `.1 30 50 000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS FURNISHED THE NA ME ADDRESS AND PAN AND CONFIRMATION OF THE DONOR ALONG WITH A COPY OF HIS RETURN BESIDES THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR IT WAS CONTENDED RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL VS. CIT 208 ITR-512 (GUJ) CIT VS. PRAGATI CO.OP. BANK LTD. 278 ITR 170 (GUJ.) CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT AND ANOTHER 264 ITR 254 (GAU.) DCIT VS. ROHIN I BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ.) ROHINI BUILDERS VS. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (AHD) ADDITIONAL CIT VS. HANUMAN AGARWAL 151 ITR 150 (PAT.) ADDEL.CIT VS. BAHRI BROS PVT. LTD. 154 ITR 244 (PAT.) AND SAROGI CREDIT CORPORATION VS. CI T 103 ITR 344 (PAT) THAT FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME AS ALSO IN THE NAME OF HIS COUSIN SHRI DHIRAJLAL GANESHBHAI WHO ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAID FLAT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS GIFT. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEP TED THE GIFT TO BE GENUINE IN HIS CASE. IN FACT AN AMOUNT OF `.95 LAKHS WAS I NVESTED BY HIS FATHER IN HIS NAME WHILE THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER PAYMENT OF `.3 5.50 LACS IT WAS SUBMITTED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL BEFORE TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. I FIND THAT THE APPEAL IS DIRECTLY AND SQUARELY COVERED BY MY ORDER IN THE CA SE OF SURESH V. PATEL CO-OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5 WHICH WAS DECIDED IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XX/92/2006-07 DATED 5-1 1-2007 WHEREIN I HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RE MAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE A.O. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF `.95.50 LACS FROM HIS FATHER WHO PAID THE S AID AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE VENDOR OF THE FLAT AND TRANSFERRED THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT BY PAG E 3 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PASSING A JOURNAL ENTRY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT IS AN EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE BE ING ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE AS THE APPELLANT. IN THE BALANCE SHEET O F THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THAT OF THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT THE PAYMEN TS TO THE BUILDER OF THE FLAT ARE DULY REFLECTED AND THE SAME ARE MADE FROM THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER OF THE FLAT WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE THIS TRANSACTION OF GIFT STOOD ACCE PTED. IN CASE OF ANY TRANSACTION OF GIFT THE FOLLOWING THREE INGREDIENTS ARE TO BE PROVED: 1) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION 2) IDENTITY OF THE DONOR; AND 3) CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE DONOR. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED ALL THESE THREE CONDITIONS IN AS MUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS PRO VED THE IDENTITY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION AND COPY OF THE PAN RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DONOR PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS. ONCE THESE THREE INGREDIENTS ARE PROVED TRANSACTION OF GIFT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS GENUINE AND THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS TREATED AS GENUINE AND ADDITION MADE O N THAT COUNT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE AL LOWED. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE REMAINS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SHRI SURESH V. PATEL WHICH WAS DECIDED BY ME IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- XX/92/2006-07 DATED 5-11-2007 AND THEREFORE NO SUC H ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO THEREF ORE THE ADDITION MADE OF `.95 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTIO N 69 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. AS REGARDS `.35.50 LACS MAKING PART OF TOTAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF VALUE OF PROPERTY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN IN VESTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE INVESTMENT OF THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ADDED DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE POSITION CLARIFIED IN THIS REGARD BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE APPELLANT TOTAL ADDITION OF `.1 30 50 000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF `.95 00 000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS UNCLE SHRI VALLABHA I MULJIBHAI PATEL BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER DATED 5-11-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESH V. PATEL WHO HAD ALSO RECEIVED `.95 00 000/- FROM HIS FATHER SHRI VALLABHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL FOR ACQUIRING SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 19-8-2010 IN ITA NO.849/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE PAG E 4 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THERE FORE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE CON FIRMED FOR DELETING ADDITION OF `.95 00 000/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF `. 35 50 000/- DELETED BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTED OPENING B ALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AND COP Y OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THOSE YEARS WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY DELETE D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED W ITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUSIN BROTHER SHRI SURESH V. PATEL JOINTLY PURCHAS ED ONE FLAT AT A COST OF `.1 30 50 000/-EACH. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF `.1 30 50 000/- UNDER SECTION 69 IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE BY ASSUMING THAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SIMILAR ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SURESH V. PA TEL. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE AB OVE ADDITION. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS HE LD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. I FIND THAT THE APPEAL IS DIRECTLY AND SQUARELY COVERED BY MY ORDER IN THE CA SE OF SURESH V. PATEL CO-OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5 WHICH WAS DECIDED IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XX/92/2006-07 DATED 5-1 1-2007 WHEREIN I HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RE MAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE A.O. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF `.95.50 LACS FROM HIS FATHER WHO PAID THE S AID AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE VENDOR OF THE FLAT AND TRANSFERRED THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT BY PASSING A JOURNAL ENTRY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT IS AN EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE BE ING ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE AS THE APPELLANT. IN THE BALANCE SHEET O F THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THAT OF THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT THE PAYMEN TS TO THE BUILDER OF THE PAG E 5 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 FLAT ARE DULY REFLECTED AND THE SAME ARE MADE FROM THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER OF THE FLAT WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE THIS TRANSACTION OF GIFT STOOD ACCE PTED. IN CASE OF ANY TRANSACTION OF GIFT THE FOLLOWING THREE INGREDIENTS ARE TO BE PROVED: 1) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION 2) IDENTITY OF THE DONOR; AND 3) CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE DONOR. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED ALL THESE THREE CONDITIONS IN AS MUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS PRO VED THE IDENTITY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION AND COPY OF THE PAN RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DONOR PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS. ONCE THESE THREE INGREDIENTS ARE PROVED TRANSACTION OF GIFT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS GENUINE AND THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS TREATED AS GENUINE AND ADDITION MADE O N THAT COUNT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE AL LOWED. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE REMAINS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SHRI SURESH V. PATEL WHICH WAS DECIDED BY ME IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- XX/92/2006-07 DATED 5-11-2007 AND THEREFORE NO SUC H ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO THEREF ORE THE ADDITION MADE OF `.95 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTIO N 69 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. AS REGARDS `.35.50 LACS MAKING PART OF TOTAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF VALUE OF PROPERTY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN IN VESTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE INVESTMENT OF THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ADDED DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE POSITION CLARIFIED IN THIS REGARD BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE APPELLANT TOTAL ADDITION OF `.1 30 50 000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 9. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SAID SHRI SURESHBHAI V. PATEL THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19-8-2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.849 /AHD/2008 HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF `. 95 LACS EACH IN A FLAT IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESS EE AND SHRI DHIRAJLAL GANESHBHAI. THE PAYMENT FOR THIS FLAT IS STATED TO HAVE MADE FROM THE DENA BANK AND STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA ACCOUNT OF M /S. ARSHIT GEMS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31-3-2002 AND 31-3-2003 A ND IS REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. APPA RENTLY WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED WAS ONLY THE PAYMENT MADE FOR AND ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY HIS FATHER. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE NAME ADDRESS CONFIRMATION AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE DO NOR AND THUS AS CONCLUDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS DISCLOSED THROUGH THE KNOWN S OURCES OF THE PAG E 6 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE C ONCLUDED THAT EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PAN RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DONOR AN EXISTIN G ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US IN O RDER TO CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE NOT I NCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 10. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL COULD BE BROUGHT ON RE CORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN ACQUIRING THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER HAND THE BALANCE SHEET OF TH E ASSESSEE AS ON 31-3-2001 AND 31-3-2002 SHOWS THAT BY THAT DATE INVESTMENT OF `.35 50 000/- WAS ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION CO ULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL HA S FOUND THAT BALANCE AMOUNT OF `.95 00 000/- WAS INVESTED BY SHRI VALLABHBHAI M ULJIBHAI PATEL UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31-3-2003. THUS IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY ACTUAL INVESTMENT W AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MA KING ADDITION OF `.1 30 50 000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 COMPILED AND COMPARED BY: PATKI PAG E 7 OF 7 ITA NO.3468/AHD/2008. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XX AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27-10-2010 ------------- ------ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 28-10-2010 ---- --------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 28-10-2010 ---------- --------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 28-10-2010 --------- ---- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 29-10-2010 ------- ------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 29-10-2010 -------- ------------ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 29-10-2010 ----- --------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- --- ------------------