Sh. Amit Gupta Prop. M/s. Viraj Industries, Jammu V. The Income-tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 1/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80616 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 482 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN:ABAPG0715D INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. AMIT GUPTA, WARD-1(1), JAMMU PROP. M/S VIRAJ INDUSTRIE S, LANE NO. 4, PHASE-II SIDCO INDUSTRIES COMPLEX, BARI BARHMANA, JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NO. 01 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN:ABAPG0715D SH. AMIT GUPTA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S VIRAJ INDUSTRIES, WARD- 1(1), JAMMU JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 25.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2014 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. 1. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A), JAMMU. ITA 2 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 NO. 482(ASR)/2012 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, INCLUDING ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SUSPENSE SUNDRY CREDITORS , IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS & SUSPENSE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN SPIT E OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. III. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORT UNITY TO THE AO AND ALSO ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD HIMSELF REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 2. ITA NO. 01(ASR)/2013 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,000/-. II. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,000/-. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TWO ADDITIONS, I.E., RS. 9,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN SUSPENSE ACCOU NT AND RS. 16,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOA NS. 3 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 4. APROPOS THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/-, COMPRISI NG THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SUSPENSE SUNDRY CREDITORS AT RS. 20,00,589/-. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD RECEIVED TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 11,00,589/- ON 19.04.2008 AND RS. 9,00,000/- ON 31.12.2008. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ALLOCATE THE SAID CHEQUES TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED AND ACC ORDINGLY, THESE WERE CREDITED TO THE SUSPENSE-DR ACCOUNT AND SHOWN AS CREDITOR. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR, THE CHEQUE FOR RS. 11,00,589/- WAS FOUND TO RELATE TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S HEM CHAND GUP TA & SONS AND WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJUSTED IN HIS ACCOUNT. WITH REGARD TO THE CREDIT OF RS. 9,00,000/-, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STI LL NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE ACCOUNT TO WHICH THIS CHEQUE PERTAINS AND ACCOR DINGLY, THE SAME STILL CONTINUES TO BE SHOWN UNDER THE SUSPENSE-DR ACCOUNT . 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS BY OBSE RVING THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF ALL CREDIT ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT JUST SAYING THAT THE SOURCE COULD NOT BE LOCATED COULD NOT MEAN THAT THE CREDIT STANDS EXPLAINED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSE RVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT 4 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 HE COULD NOT LOCATE THE ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THIS AMO UNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THAT, HOWEVER, IN THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S SU BASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS, THROUGH CHEQUE. A COPY OF CONFIRMATION ACCOUNT FROM THE SAID PARTY WAS ALSO F ILED. FROM THE ACCOUNT, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS OF GIVING AND RECEIVING THE PAYMENTS THROUGH CHEQUE S WITH THE SAID PARTY. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,00,000/- IN S USPENSE ACCOUNT STANDS EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION IS THUS D ELETED. 7. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CI T(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS IN RESP ECT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND SUSPENSE SUNDRY CREDITORS, IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, STATES THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECE IVED BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUE. IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPLAINED THAT TH E ENTRY 5 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 PERTAINS TO SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE CONFIRMATION CONFIRMING THE ENTRY HAD DULY BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE HAS B ROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THE COPIES OF SUSPENSE ACCOUNT (APB - 7), THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT (APB 8-10) AND BANK STATE MENT OF M/S SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS (APB 11), SHOWING THIS AMOUNT TO BE DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS (CONFIRMATION) [APB 12-14]. IT IS STAT ED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 9. IT IS SEEN THAT WHEREAS THOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A ) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE, WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, HE HAS RELIED ON THE SAME, WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ACTIO N OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE, PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM. NOWHERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS IT BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE. THUS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD IS C ORRECT AND IS ACCEPTED. 6 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 10. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO RE-CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND TO RE-DECIDE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT THEREOF, ON AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. SO FAR AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 6,00,000/- AND RS. 10,00,000/- FROM M/S A.K. TRADIN G COMPANY AND M/S K.K. ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS WITH RESPECT THERETO. VID E HIS REPLY DATED 23.09.2009, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF ACCO UNT OF THE SAID PERSONS. NO DETAILS LIKE ADDRESS OF THE PARTY, ITS PAN, EVIDENCE OF RETURN FILED BY LONER, CONFIRMATION FRO M THE PARTY, CHEQUE NUMBER AND DATE THROUGH WHICH LOAN WAS RECEI VED, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LONER, ETC., WERE FILED . THEREAFTER, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO HIM TO FILE THE RELEVANT DETAILS, BUT THE SAME WERE NOT FILED. ON 09.12.2011 , THE COUNSEL WAS ONCE AGAIN REQUESTED TO FILE THE RELEVA NT DETAILS LATEST BY 19.12.2011. ON 19.12.2011, IT WAS AGAIN R EPEATED BY 7 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS STILL OBTAINING THE RELEV ANT DETAILS FROM THE SAID CONCERN AND AS SUCH REQUESTED FOR SOM E MORE TIME. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE TO UNDE RSTAND BY THE AO THAT THIS WAS A TIME BARRING CASE AND ALREAD Y REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN GIVEN TO HIM. HE WAS FURTHER ALLOWED TIME UPTO 27.12.2011 TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS. NO DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON 27.12.2011. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE LOANER AND PAN OF THE LOAN ER. NO DETAILS OF HIS ASSESSMENT TO INCOME TAX HAD BEEN GI VEN. ALSO, NO DETAILS OF THE BANK A/C FROM WHICH THE LOAN HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED HAD BEEN GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE AO OBSER VED THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,00,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WERE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO HIS RETURNED INCOME AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDIT. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOL DING THAT REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/-, IT WAS OBSERVED 8 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT UNSECURED LOANS OF RS . 6,00,000/- AND RS. 10,00,000/- HAD BEEN SHOWN FROM M/S A.K. TRADING CO. AND M/S K.K. ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKE D SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/-. IN THE REPLY BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THA T THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS. 6,00,000/- FROM M/S A.K. TRADING CO . HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF RS. 10,00,000/- IN T HE NAME OF M/S K.K. ENTERPRISES. THERE WAS AN ENTRY IN THE NAM E OF M/S. K.K. & COMPANY, BUT THAT AMOUNT WAS FOR RS. 7,00,00 0/- AND NOT RS. 10,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO EXAM INE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CREDITS. THE REQUEST OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCE WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITIES PROVIDED ON 09.12.2011, 19.12.2011 AND 27.12.2011 BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE CIT(A), COULD NOT SHOW SUFFIC IENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM FURNISHING THOSE DETAILS. THE AS SESSEE HAD FURNISHED BANK STATEMENT OF TWO PARTIES, M/S A.K. TRADING CO. AND M/S. K.K. 9 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 ENTERPRISES. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE TWO PART IES, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT AND IN THEIR B ANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS SEEN THAT CASH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AND MONEY HAD BEE N TRANSFERRED FROM SOME OTHER ACCOUNTS BEFORE GIVING CHEQUES TO THE AS SESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AMOUNTS OF RS. 49,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THESE ACCOUNTS TO AVOID THE LIMIT ATION ON CASH DEPOSIT BEYOND RS. 50,000/-, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PRIMARY DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK. IT WAS, IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THAT FINDINGS THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 6,00,000/- AND RS. 7,00,000/- (INS TEAD OF RS. 10,00,000/-) WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT THUS CONFIRMED CAME TO RS. 13,00,000/-. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE RAISED UN-SECURED LOANS OF RS. 6,00,000/- & RS. 10,00,000/ - FROM M/S A.K. TRADING CO., & M/S. K.K. & CO., RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE INFORMATION EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS CO-TERMINUS POWERS TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE, BUT HE HAS NOT APPRECIATE D AND HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,000/- AGAIN ST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 16,00 ,000/-. 10 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THER E WAS A CREDIT OF RS. 6,00,000/- FROM M/S A.K. TRADING CO., & RS. 7,00,000/- FROM M/S K.K. & CO., AGAINST RS. 10,00,0 00/- WRONGLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS CONT ENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLAC ED BEFORE HIM, FROM WHICH HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS. 13,00,000/- AGAINST RS. 16,00,000/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; THAT HE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER T HE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SAME WITH THE SAME MATERIAL, WHICH I S NOT JUSTIFIED; THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID PARTIES, I.E., M/S A. K. TRADING CO., & M/S KK. & CO., WERE DULY FILED; THAT IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS. 6,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF M/S A.K. TRADING CO., IN THE ACCOUNT-BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE; THAT A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S A.K. TRADIN G CO. IS AVAILABLE AT APB NO. 2, THAT A CONFIRMED COPY OF AC COUNT OF M/S. A.K. TRADING CO. IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK; THAT SIMILARLY, BANK STATEMENT OF M/S A.K. TR ADING CO. IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK; THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT 11 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 BALANCE OF RS. 7,00,000/- AND NOT RS. 10,00,000/-, OF M/S A.K. TRADING CO., AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/-; THAT AS FAR AS THE OTHER CREDIT OF RS. 7,00,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. K.K. ENTERPRISES IS CONCERNED, NECESSARY COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK; THAT SIM ILARLY, BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. K.K. & CO. IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED; THA T THUS, THIS ACCOUNT IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE BANK STATEMEN T; AND THAT IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,0 00/-, WHICH WAS ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT, AND THE ADDITI ON CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), MAY KINDLY BE DELE TED. 14. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CONTENDING THAT SIN CE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDIT ION. 12 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 15. HERE, IT IS SEEN THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE BANK STATEMEN T OF THE CREDITORS, AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THEM. THE MATTER COMPRISING THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS ABOVE. REG ARDING THE ISSUE AT HAND ALSO, SINCE THE MATERIAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THEM BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO RE-DECIDE IT BY PASSING A SPE AKING ORDER ON CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH 0 SEPTEMBER, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: AMIT GUPTA, PROP. M/S VIRAJ INDUSTRIE S, JAMMU 2. ITO, WARD -1(1), JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER 13 I.T.A. NOS. 482 (ASR)/2012 & 01 (ASR)/2013 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.