Smt. Meera Singh, Varanasi V. Income tax Officer, Varanasi

CO 16/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8397 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH CHA ND
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 133/ALLD./2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. MEERA SINGH, WARD 3(2),VARANASI. K-31/29, BHAIRONATH, VARANASI. (PAN : APRPS 1261 B) C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 (IN ITA NO. 133/ALLD./2012) ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. MEERA SINGH, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, K-31/29, BHAIRONATH, WARD 3(2),VARANASI. VARANASI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI T.P. SHUKLA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHAND, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 15.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 17.04.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJE CTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VARANASI DATED 27.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,49,250/-. AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM RETAIL TRADING AS PER PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 44AF FROM TRADING OF DRESS MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE IS A DOOR VENDOR AN D SELLING HER PRODUCTS DOOR TO DOOR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ON VE RIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON ITS DETAILS OF AIR TRANSACTIONS, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK AND HAS DEPOSITED MO RE THAN RS.1,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, AS PER BALAN CE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF ICICI BANK LTD., WHICH IS IN T HE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR THERE ARE LARGE N UMBER OF CASH DEPOSITS OVER AND ABOVE RS.20,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES TOTALING TO RS.5 3,87,876/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. HOWEVER, IN THE REPLY, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION IS A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND IS BEING OPERATED BY ALL TH E FAMILY MEMBERS. THE FAMILY MEMBERS USED TO GO TO OUT STATIONS IN CONNECTION WI TH THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THEY DO NOT CARRY CASH WITH THEM FROM SECURITY POIN T OF VIEW AND THEY USED THIS ACCOUNT FOR DEPOSITING AND WITHDRAWING MONEY. IT HA S BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE BUSINESS AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS FAMILY BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 3 ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH C REDITS APPEARING IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DIS CHARGED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT WAS MADE TREATING TH E UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.53,87,876/-. 3. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 4 OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER AND THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR DECISION, DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION AND TREATED THE BANK DEPOSITS AS SALE PROCEEDS OF A SSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% FO R MAKING ADDITION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE AND CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I ENDORSE THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION THE TOTAL DEPOSIT IN SAID BANK A/C IS THE SALES PROCEED AND ASSESSING OFFICER MAY APPLY THE NET PROFIT RATE @ 6 % 4. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1.THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.53,87,876/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK A/C NO. 628301508037 OF ICICI BANK OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SCRUTINIZE AS PER CASS SELECTION AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE AND NATURE OF CASH DEPOSIT S OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCE. ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 4 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE DEPOSITS IN ABOVE SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT AT PAR WITH CURRENT A/C MAINTAINED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AP PLYING N.P. RATE 6% ON THE FACE VALUE OF ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD SUCH AS EVIDENCES OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS TA X AUDIT REPORT, AUDITED ACCOUNT ETC. ON TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.40 LA CS REQUIRED AS PER SECTION 44AA, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION RAISED THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. BECAUSE IT WAS FULLY EXPLAINED THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.(155000/- - 5750/-) 149250/- (RETURNED INCOME) C ANNOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSED INCOME, AS IT IS A PART & PARCEL OF TH E TOTAL TURNOVER DETERMINED AS PER BANK A/C. THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) BOTH HAVE ERRED AND ACTED ILL EGALLY IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS ASPECT OF FACT. 2. BECAUSE THE RATE OF PROFIT CAN NOT BE MORE THAN 5% AS PER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) H AS ERRED AND ACTED ILLEGALLY IN APPLYING N.P. RATE 6%. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 44AF AND THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN HER NAME F ROM THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY DENIED MAINTENANCE OF ANY BA NK ACCOUNT AND EVEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, NO SUCH BANK ACCOUNT WAS SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION OF I NFORMATION AVAILABLE ON ITS DETAILS OF AIR TRANSACTIONS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT IN HER NAME WITH ICICI BANK IN WHICH DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES TO TALING TO RS.53,87,876/-. THE ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 5 ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. TOOK THE STAND THAT TH E BANK ACCOUNT BELONGS TO HER FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A DIFFER ENT STAND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUNIL KUMAR AGA RWAL VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO. 325/2002 DATED 17.07.2006 AND PARA 14 AND 15 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STA GE CLAIMED THAT ONLY PROFIT RATE MAY BE APPLIED ON BANK DEPOSITS AND PEAK ADDITION M AY BE MADE, WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE THEORY OF PEAK IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED C ASH DEPOSITS AND ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA)(P.B.-28) AN D SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE BANK DEPOSITS ARE IN FACT THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE FILED AT PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS FILED AT PAGES 1 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE PROFIT RATE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 6% BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE AS AGAINS T THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF, WHICH PROVIDES THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5%. ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 6 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO APPLY THE PROFIT RATE OF 6% AGAINST THE SAME TREATING THE BANK DEPOSITS TO BE T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHAIYAL AL SHYAM BEHARI VS CIT 276 ITR 38 (ALLD) HELD AS UNDER: IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE PLEA OF PEAK CREDI T THE FACTUAL FOUNDATION HAS TO BE LAID BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS T O OWN ALL CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ONLY THE REAFTER CAN THE QUESTION OF PEAK CREDIT BE RAISED. HELD, THAT AS THE AMOUNT OF CASH CREDITS STOOD IN T HE NAMES OF DIFFERENT PERSONS WHICH ALL ALONG THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING TO BE GENUINE DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS/PAYMENTS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED T O CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT. 8.1 THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIJAY AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES 294 ITR 610 (ALLD) FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF BHAIYALAL SHYAM BEHARI (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979 -80 NOTICED CERTAIN CASH CREDITS IN THE SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND TREATED THEM AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THIS WAS UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER. ON FURTHER APPEAL CONTENDING THAT THE PEAK CREDITS SHOULD ALONE BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND NOT AS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE APPEL LATE ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 7 COMMISSIONER, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ONLY THEM AMOU NT OF PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A DDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . ON A REFERENCE: HELD, THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS OF THE TWO DEPOSITORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD TAKEN THE PEAK CR EDIT AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT AND ADDED IT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. S O FAR AS REMAINING DEPOSITS WERE CONCERNED THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION BE TWEEN THE DEPOSITORS AND THE ASSESSEE. THE PRINCIPLE OF PEAK CREDIT COULD NOT APPLY IN CASE OF DIFFERENT DEPOSITORS WHERE THERE H AD BEEN NO TRANSACTION OF DEPOSITS AND REPAYMENT BETWEEN A PAR TICULAR DEPOSITOR AND THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE THE PEAK CREDIT FOR THE P URPOSES OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 8.2 CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF MISDIRECTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HIS ORDER IS NON- SPEAKING AND PERVERSE IN NATURE. SECTION 250(6) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL HAVE TO PASS THE APPELLATE ORDER GIVIN G REASONS FOR DECISIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR DECISION HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE THE SALE PROCEEDS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION OR GIVING ANY REASONS. TH E LD.CIT(A) MERELY REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF P UNIL KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA) BY REPRODUCING PARA 14 AND 15 OF THE ORDER AND THER EAFTER REPRODUCED PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE BANK DEPOSITS TO BE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED MAINTENANCE OF ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN HER NAME AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 8 AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE DENIED MAINTENANCE OF ANY B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK IN HER NAME AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE AS SESSEE HAS DEPOSITED SUM OF RS.53,87,876/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH ON VARIO US DATES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS FACT, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN S UBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IS OPERATED BY ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND WHENEVER THEY GO OUT STATIONS THEY USED TO DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAW MONEY IN HER NAME AND THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HER NAME WITH ICICI BA NK HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS FAMILY ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK A CON TRARY STAND AND BY REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE O F PUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA) CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS BE T REATED AS HER SALE PROCEEDS AND PROFIT RATE MAY BE ALLOWED AND TRADING ADDITION MAY BE MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDING OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR DECISION, ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE WHICH IS ALSO PASSED WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASES REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA), IN WHICH THE ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 9 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND SINCE THESE WERE THE TRADING TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, GROSS PROFIT RATE MAY BE ADDED ALONG WIT H PEAK INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK A CONTRARY STAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT DISCLOSE HER BANK ACCOUNT IN HER NAME AND CLAIMED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS A FAMILY ACCOUNT HAVING NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LAID OUT ANY FACTUAL FOUNDATION OF THE PLEA OF PEAK CREDIT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NEVER OWNED UP ANY SUCH DEPOS IT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS OF ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS VIJAY AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND BH AIYALAL SHYAM BEHARI (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH THE PEAK AD DITION WAS MADE BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION EVEN ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK AMOUNT AND HAS, THUS, BLATANTLY VIOLATED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WEL L. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD A ND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS NOT SPEAKING ORDER, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SUSTAINED. THE MATTER, THEREFORE, REQ UIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ORDER THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE WHOLE OF THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH TH E DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL ITA NO. 133 & C.O. NO. 16/ALLD./2012 10 OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS IN THIS ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT REPRODUCE D ABOVE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED TO PASS REASONED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE C ROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY