Avtarsingh Khurana, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

CO 144/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.137/AHD/2013 ALONG WITH CO NO.142/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 DY. CIT (OSD), RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT VS. SMT. MADHU KHURANA,, 75, SAFAL VIHAN, NR. EKLAVYA SCHOOL, SARKHEJ, SANAND VIRAMGAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. RESPONDENT PAN : ALYPK2443E & IT(SS)A NOS.138 & 139/AHD/2013 ALONG WITH CO NO.143 & 144/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 & 2007-08 IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 2 DY. CIT (OSD), RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT VS. SHRI AVTARSINGH KHURANA, 75, SAFAL VIHAN, NR. EKLAVYA SCHOOL, SARKHEJ, SANAND VIRAMGAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. RESPONDENT PAN : AFHPK5758B APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL, CIT, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR DATE OF HEARING : 26/6/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29/06/2015 O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ALL THREE SETS OF APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS PER TAIN TO WIFE AND HUSBAND ON COMMON ISSUE. THESE ARE BEING DECID ED VIDE COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A) DATED 15.01.2013 FOR AY 2007-08 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 3 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,06,000/- MADE U/S 69A AS UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSIT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,94,973/- MADE U/S 69 AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME/BOO K PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAV ES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GR OUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153AR.W.S. 153C & 143(3) ON THE GROUND THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY HER. CONSIDERING THE LAW AND FACTS AS WELL AS CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 4 LD.AO IS ULTRA VIRES TO THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C O F THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED IN TH E INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEING ILLEGAL & VOID AB INITIO. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G ADDITION OF RS.26,86,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CHEQUE DEPOSIT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 3) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IN TEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHEN NO SUCH INTERES T IS CHARGEABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 4) IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPELLANTS APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGI NG THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THERE WA S NO BASIS, WARRANT OR JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE SAME. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND /OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WAS CARR IED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF DR. RAJESH RAJORA & OTHERS. DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE W ERE SEIZED AND IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 5 INFORMATION BY WAY OF SATISFACTION NOTE ALONG WITH LPS-2 AND LPS-3 WAS PASSED ON TO THE OFFICE. THEREFORE, A NOT ICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 01.11.2011 AND THE SAME WAS S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 02.11.2011, REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THE NOTIC E. 4.1 IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08. 11.2011 REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS RECORDED, RELEVANT MATERI ALS AND DETAILS AS TO WHEN SUCH MATERIALS WAS RECEIVED AND FROM WHOM S UCH MATERIALS ARE RECEIVED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED VIDE LETTER DTD.14.11.2011 ALL THE DETAILS SUCH AS 1) SA TISFACTION NOTE, 2) COPIES OF ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS AND 3) ORDER U/S 1 27. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007-08 ON 01.12.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,17,310/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S. 153C & 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 30.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS O BJECTION RAISING THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S. 153C & 143(3). 4.2 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDE R OF THE IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 6 ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C SHOULD BE QUASHED. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RAJESH RAJORA VS. UNION OF INDIA (2013) 40 TAXMANN. COM 330 (MADHYA PRADESH) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT CONSEQUE NT TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI RAJESH RAJORA A T BHOPAL ON 30.05.2008. HE PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE DECIS ION. IN SAID CASE SHRI RAJESH RAJORA CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADE SH HIGH COURT VIDE A WRIT PETITION NO.13833 OF 2010. THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE QUASHED ISSUANC E OF WARRANT AND CONSEQUENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS AGAIN ST SHRI RAJESH RAJORA. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HO NBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ISSUE ORIGINATED FROM ABOVE M ATTER, SO THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF PRESENT ASSESSEE OUGHT TO BE QUASHED AS CH ALLENGED VIDE GROUND NO.1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. THE REMAINING G ROUNDS OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS MAY NOT BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS S INCE THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IS HELD TO BE INVALID. ON OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND REQUESTED IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 7 TO ALLOW ALL ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IN THIS CASE INCLUD ING REOPENING OF THE CASES. 4.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOI NG THROUGH THE RECORD WE FIND THAT HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH RAJORA VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HA S DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE HEAD NOTE O F THE DECISION IS AS UNDER :- SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SEARCH AN D SEIZURE (VALIDITY OF SEARCH) SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDING S WERE CONDUCTED IN PREMISES OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICER ON WA RRANT ISSUED BY DIRECTOR, ON BASIS OF A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SE ARCH CONDUCTED IN PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON ABOUT 9 MONTHS BEFORE WHETHER, SINCE SECTION 132 DOES NOT CONFER ANY ARBITRARY AUT HORITY UPON REVENUE OFFICERS, THEY MUST HAVE IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT STATUTORY CONDITIONS FOR EXE RCISE OF POWER TO ORDER SEARCH EXISTED HELD, YES- WHETHER, WHERE EN TIRE BASIS OF RECORDING SATISFACTION IN ASSESSEES CASE WAS A DOC UMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH CONDUCTED IN PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERS ON, WHICH NEITHER BORE ASSESSEES NAME NOR INDICATED THAT IT WAS RELATED TO ASSESSEE, WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED MEREL Y ON HYPOTHECATED GROUNDS, AND THEREFORE, ISSUANCE OF WA RRANT OF AUTHORIZATION AND SUBSEQUENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE PRO CEEDINGS WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED HELD, YES (PARA 15) (IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE). 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WHICH IS ORIGINA L POINT IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE. SO, WE QUA SH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, FIRST GROUN D OF THE CROSS IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 8 OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS ARE QUASHED, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF REVENU E HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS AND SAME IS FACT OF OTHER GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY ASSESSEE. REGARDING SUBM ISSION OF DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DIRECTION FOR ALTER NATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ACTION AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLO WED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 6. IN ITA NO. 138/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN CASE OF HUSBAND, REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL ON FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,29,000/- MADE U/S 69A AS UNEXP LAINED CASH DEPOSIT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,17,000/- MADE U/S 69 AS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 9 ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME/BOO K PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAV ES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GR OUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 7. IN C.O. NO.143/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, ASSESS EE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153AR.W.S. 153C & 143(3) ON THE GROUND THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY HER. CONSIDERING THE LAW AND FACTS AS WELL AS CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD.AO IS ULTRA VIRUS TO THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C O F THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED IN TH E INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEING ILLEGAL & VOID AB INITIO. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G ADDITION OF RS.4,17,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED CHEQUE DEPOSIT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 3) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IN TEREST U/S IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 10 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHEN NO SUCH INTERES T IS CHARGEABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 4) IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPELLANTS APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGI NG THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THERE WA S NO BASIS, WARRANT OR JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE SAME. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND /OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 8. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN WIFES CASE IN APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE F IRST GROUND OF THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASHED, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF REVENUE GOES ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS AND SAME ARE DISMISSED. SAME IS FACT OF OTHER GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. REGARDING SUBMISSION OF LD. AR FOR DIRECTION FOR ALTERNATE RE MEDY IN THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ACTION AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 11 8.1 SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO. 139/AHD/2013 AND C.O. NO. 144/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. FACTS BEING SIMILAR , SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 OF CROSS OBJEC TION RAISED BY ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS ISSUE RAISED IN REVEN UES APPEAL AS WELL AS OTHER CROSS OBJECTION GOES ACADEMIC, HENCE DISMISSED. REGARDING SUBMISSION OF LD. AR FOR DIRECTION FOR AL TERNATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ACTION AS PER LAW AFTER PROVI DING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE REVENUES APPEALS ARE D ISMISSED AND THAT OF ALL THREE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE PARTLY ALLOW ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE DAY 29 TH OF JUNE, 2015 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED : 29/6/15 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED IT(SS)A NOS.137, 138 & 139/AHD/2013 & CO NOS.142, 1 43 & 144/AHD/2013, ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2005-06 & 2007 -08 12 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY.REGISTRAR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 26/6/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 29/6/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 29/6/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: