The DCIT, Circle-2, Surat V. Shri Kanchanlal Lallubhai Panwala(HUF), Surat

ITA 145/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 14520514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2013

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH , , , , . .. . . .. .'#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% , , , , & & & & ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.145/AHD/2013 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-2010] DCIT, CIR.2 SURAT. ( /VS. KANCHANLAL LALLUBHAI PANWALA (HUF) 3/461-62, BASRAI STREET NAVAPURA, SURAT. PAN : AABHK 9192 A ITA NO.146/AHD/2013 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-2010] DCIT, CIR.2 SURAT. ( /VS. PARESHKUMAR K. PANWALA 3/431, BASARAI STREET NAVAPURA, SURAT. PAN : ABEPP 8113 E ITA NO.147/AHD/2013 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-2010] DCIT, CIR.2 SURAT. ( /VS. MEETABEN P. PANWALA 3/431, BASARAI STREET NAVAPURA, SURAT. PAN : ABEPP 8164 D ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) . / / REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.DR (1 . / / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -2- ( C 2 . 3&/ DATE OF HEARING : 26 TH AUGUST, 2013 4#5 . 3&/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-09-2013 6 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ALL THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEAL)-II, SURAT DATED 26.10.2012 IN TWO CASES I. E. SHRI PARESHKUMAR KANCHANMAL PANWALA AND MEETABEN P. PANW ALA AND DATED 31.12.2012 IN THE THIRD CASE I.E. KANCHAN LAL LALLUBHAI PANWALA (HUF) FOR A.Y.2009-2010. ALL THREE ASSESSE ES ARE RELATIVES AND ISSUE INVOLVED IS ALSO INTERCONNECTED , AND THEREFORE, ALL THREE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF KANC HANLAL LALLUBHAI PANWALA (HUF) IN ITA NO.145/AHD/2013. TH E GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.72,50,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THAT THE SURVEY DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERNS IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK, NO T IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -3- 3. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WH EREAS THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH DEPOSIT IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT WITH DENA BA NK IN SB ACCOUNT NO.425320 DURING IN THE PERIOD FROM 11.12.2 008 TO 9.3.2009 OF RS.72,50,000/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK. I N REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE EN TIRE CASH DEPOSIT IN DENA BANK IS FROM REGULAR CASH BOOK AND THE CORRECT AMOUNT IS RS.68,50,000/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BE FORE THE AO THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009, SURVEY WA S CONDUCTED ON THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S.N.B. TR ADING AND M/S,.KANCHANLAL L. PANWALA, AND DURING SUCH SURVEY, UNACCOUNTED ACTIVITIES OF THESE SISTER CONCERNS WAS DETECTED AND THEY HAVE DISCLOSED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.87.32 LAKHS IN M/S.KANCHANLAL LALLUBHAI PANWALA AND RS.88.97 LAKHS IN M/S.N.B. TRADING. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AN AM OUNT OF RS.68,71,710/- WAS ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE CASE OF BH UPENDRA K. PANWALA, HUF ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN TH E COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPENDRA KANCHANLAL PANWALA (HUF) WAS WRONGLY MADE IN HIS NAME INSTEAD OF ASSESSEES NAME M/S.KANCHANL AL LALLUBHAI PANWALA, HUF. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS DISCLOSU RE WAS ACTUALLY OFFERED BY THIS ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AND ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -4- AGAINST SALE OF SUCH EXCESS STOCK, CASH WAS RECEIVE D AND THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, AND THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS ALSO EXPLAINED. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.72.50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOS ITED IN BANK UNDER SECTION 68. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELE TED THIS ENTIRE ADDITION ON THIS BASIS THAT THE MISTAKE MADE DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF DISCLOSURE OF EXCESS STOC K IN THE HANDS OF BHUPENDRA PANWALA, HUF WAS CORRECTED IN NO TIME BY OWNING THE STOCK IN ASSESSEES HAND, AND CORRESPOND INGLY PAYING THE ADVANCE TAX ON THIS DISCLOSURE. HE ALSO NOTED THAT COPY OF THIS LETTER WAS FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, AND THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS ON THE LETTER FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SOURCE O F CASH DEPOSITS STANDS EXPLAINED OUT OF CASH RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SUCH EXCESS STOCK DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. BEF ORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRESENT YEAR, AS PER WHICH, THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF RS.69,96,200/- AND AGAINST SUCH SALE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCH ASE OR OPENING STOCK. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS SALE OF RS.69.90 LAKHS IS IN FACT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESE NT YEAR, AND EVEN IF, THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE IN SURVEY IN PRESENT CA SE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK, THEN ALSO IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.69.96 LAKHS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY DEDU CTION ON ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -5- ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OR OPENING STOCK. THE CASH GEN ERATED ON ACCOUNT OF THIS SALE EXPLAINS THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSITED IN BANK, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION FO R THE SAME AMOUNT, AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GR OUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 5. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS UN DER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R. RS.1,17,04,500/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY PROOFS REGA RDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN RBI BONDS. 6. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WH EREAS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA- 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON 11.4.2008 AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,17,04,500/- FROM THE MATURITY OF 6.5% RBI RELIEF BONDS. HE HAS ALSO NOT ED THAT THE HUF WAS FORMED IN THE YEAR 2001 AND IN THE YEAR 200 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN RBI BOU NDS WHICH GOT MATURED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. THEREAFTER, I T IS NOTED BY THE ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -6- AO THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, HE ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN RBI R ELIEF BONDS ON 10.4.2003. REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SU CH INVESTMENT WAS REGULARLY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF ALL THE YEARS I.E. ASSTT.YEARS 2004-2005 TO 2008-2009, AND THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO SUBMITTED PHOTO-COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN O F INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE BALA NCE SHEET FOR ALL THE YEARS. THE AO NOTED THAT REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS TAKEN ON RECORD, BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED BANK STATEMENT OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE I.E. A .Y.2004- 2005, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 20 03-2004 IS NOT EXPLAINED, AND ON THIS BASIS, HE MADE ADDITION OF T HE ENTIRE REDEMPTION AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A), IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT SINCE THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-2004, THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO R EOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THAT YEAR, IF THE AO WAS HAVING ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED LATER ON THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD ANY INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN THAT YEAR. ON THIS B ASIS, HE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT YEAR. SINCE AS PER THE FACTS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2003- 2004 RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-2005, AND SUCH INVESTMENT WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE S HEET FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME OF ALL EARLIER YEARS, A ND THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -7- INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT, THEN ALSO NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE AO IS WELL WITHIN ITS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR OF INVES TMENT, IF HE HAS MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION THAT SUCH INVESTMENT IS OUT OF INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE AO MAY TA KE SUITABLE ACTION IN THAT YEAR AS PER THE PROVISION O F LAW, BUT IN ANY CASE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT YEAR, AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PA RESHKUMAR K. PANWALA, IN ITA NO.146/AHD/2013. THE GROUND NO .1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,65,00,000/- INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN RBI BONDS. 9. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WH EREAS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THIS GROUND IS IDE NTICAL TO THE GROUND NO.2 IN THE CASE OF KANCHANLAL LALLUBHAI PAN WALA, (HUF) AND SAME MAY BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE. ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -8- 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE ALSO IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON 11.4.2008 RS.165.00 LAKHS FROM THE MATURITY OF RBI BONDS. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE INVES TMENT WAS MADE ON 10.4.2013 AND THE SAME WAS DULY SHOWN IN TH E BALANCE SHEET ETC. OF EARLIER YEARS I.E. FROM ASSTT.EYAR 20 04-05 TO 2006- 2007. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WE DECIDE THI S ISSUE IN THIS CASE ALSO ON SIMILAR LINE, AS WAS DECIDED BY US IN THE CASE OF KANCHANLAL L. PANWALA ABOVE, IN GROUND NO.2, IN ITA NO.145/AHD/2013 AS PER PARA-6 ABOVE. THIS GROUND I N THE PRESENT CASE IS REJECTED. 12. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS U NDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.20,13,387/- AS THE FACTS THAT THE COST OF ACQUIS ITION SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND IN THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME AS WELL AS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUA TION OFFICER IS CONTRADICTORY AND THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND THE AO DID NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME. 13. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, W HEREAS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROPE RTY WAS SOLD BY ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -9- THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS HELD BY HIM JOINTLY WITH HI S WIFE MITABEN P. PANWALA. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS S OLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.55 LAKHS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING SALE CONSIDERATION BECAUSE AS PER THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SAN AND, JANTRI PRICE OF THIS PROPERTY IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009 WAS ONLY RS.34,92,7000/- INCLUDING RS.15 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST, AND RS.19.92 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LAND VALUE. ON THE BASIS OF THIS WORKING GIVEN BY THE SUB-REGIS TRAR REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF RS.15 LAKHS, THE AO CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2003- 2004 CANNOT BE MORE THAN RS.7.5 LAKHS BEING 50% OF THE COST IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009. ON THIS BASIS, HE RE-WOR KED OUT INDEXED COST OF THIS PROPERTY AND MADE ADDITION AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.20,13,387/- IN THE HANDS OF EACH OF TWO CO- OWNERS. AGAINST THIS ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE PROPERTY BY ADOPTING BACKWARD INDEXATION, HAS NO BASIS AND THE SAME WAS DONE BY THE AO ARBITRARILY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT OUT O F TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.55 LAKHS, THIS ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.47.50 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF SALE PR OCEEDS OF RS.7.50 LAKHS WAS DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE MITABEN. THE AO PRECEDED ON THE BASIS THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL CO-OWN ERS, AND HE ADOPTED SALE VALUE OF RS.27.50 LAKHS IN EACH CASE, BEING 50% OF ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -10- TOTAL SALE VALUE OF RS.55 LAKHS. THIS ACTION IS AL SO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. MOREOVER, AS PER THE VALUATION DONE BY SUB -REGISTRAR OF SANAND, TOTAL MARKET VALUE IN THE PRESENT YEAR WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.34.92 LAKHS, AS AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.55 LAKHS. WHEN THE SALE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS HIGHER BY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, AS COMPARED T O THE VALUATION DONE BY SUB-REGISTRAR, SANAND, THE COST O F ACQUISITION CAN ALSO BE HIGHER, AND MOREOVER, THERE IS NO BASIS OF ADOPTING BACKWARD INDEXATION TO WORK OUT THE COST OF ACQUISI TION WHEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS DULY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION, AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. NO SPECIFIC DEFECT IS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO WAS P ROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE SUCH COST WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY DEFECT IN THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS WITHOUT BASIS AN D HENCE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THIS ALLEGATION IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABL E THAT IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED OR DECLARED HIGHER VALUE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN OR DER TO CLAIM HIGHER DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR OF SALE, BECAUSE AT TH AT POINT OF TIME, IT IS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN HE WILL SELL THE PROPERTY. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ITA NO.145, 146 AND 147/AHD/2013 -11- 17. NOW WE TAKE UP THIRD APPEAL IN THE CASE OF MEET ABEN P. PANWALA, IN ITA NO.1247/AHD/2013. 18. IN THIS CASE, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARD ING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,13,387/-UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AND INTERCONNECTED WITH THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IN THE CASE OF PARESHKUMAR PANWALA, BECAUSE BOTH ARE H USBAND AND WIFE AND WERE HOLDING THE PROPERTY IN JOINT OWNERSH IP. IN THE CASE OF PARESHKUMAR K. PANWALA, WE HAVE DECIDED THI S ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA-15 ABOVE, AND AC CORDINGLY, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE GROUND IS REJECTED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 20. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS OF TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( /MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . .. . . .. .'#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% /A.K. GARODIA) & & & & /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD