Suchit Arvindbhai Patel, Gandhinagar V. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 1040/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8325 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Period of limitation; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER STAY PETITION NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA NO.1040 AND 1041/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 SUCHIT ARVINDBHAI PATEL B-14, MADHAV VIHAR BUNGALOWS TAPOVAN CIRCLE S.P. RING ROAD GANDHINAGAR 382 424. PAN : ATHPP 6723 H VS. ITO, WARD-4 GANDHINAGAR. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH SHRI PARIN SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI SAURABH SINGH, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/05/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT TWO STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF AD-INTERIM STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND AMOUNTING TO RS.9,73,142/- AND RS.5,92,697/- IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE LD.AO HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECT ION 144 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DETERMINED TOTA L TAX DEMAND OF RS.22,72,460/- WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST OF RS.7,75,8 71/-. SIMILARLY, HE SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 2 IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.6.2015 AND RAISED A DEMAND OF RS.7,40,871/-. OUT OF THE Q UANTUM ADDITION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.12,99,318/- A ND OUT OF PENALTY HE HAS PAID RS.1,48,174/-. IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESS EE HAS PRAYED FOR STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.9,73,142/- OUT OF QUANTUM ADDITION AND RS.5,92,697/- OUT OF PENALTY AMOUNT IMPOSED UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET, WHILE TAKING US THROUGH RECORD, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I.E. O N THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT OF THE AO. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS AN EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SIMILARLY, PENALTY ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PASS ED EX PARTE . THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BUT HIS APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED BY 1099 DAYS. THE PENAL TY APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER EXPIRY OF 906 DAYS OF LI MITATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY TH E LD.CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF BAR OF LIMITATION. 4. WITH THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, APPEALS MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE. THE LD .DR HAS NO OBJECTION WITH THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE, IF THE APPEALS ARE BEING ADJUDICATED. THEREFORE, AFTER LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO HEAR THE APPEALS ITSELF INST EAD OF STAY APPLICATIONS. 5. AS ALLEGED ABOVE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE A PPEALS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE TIME BARRED BY 1099 DAYS AND 906 DA YS. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS AFFIDA VIT. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: I, SUCHIT ARVINDBHAI PATEL -AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT B-14, MADHAVVIHARBUNGLOWS, TAPOVAN CIRCLE, S.P. RING ROAD , SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 3 CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS UNDER: ' . THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 WAS PASSED ON 29/L2/2014 AND SERVED TO MY FATHER SHRI ARVINDBHAI S PATEL ON 31STMARCH, 2015 (TENTATIVE DATE AS FATHER LOST HIS MEMORY FROM 2011 DUE TO BRAIN STROKE). MY FATHER SHRIARVINDBHAI S PATEL WAS SUFFERED FROM BRAIN STROKE AND WAS HOSPITALIZED ON 23/02/2011 IN APOLLO HOSPITALS INTERNATIONAL LTD. HE UNDERWENT CRANIOTOM Y AND CLIPPING OF ANEURYSM ON 16/03/2011 AND KEPT UND ER OBSERVATION AND DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL ON 28/03/2 011 I.E. AFTER ALMOST 33 DAYS (48 HOURS WITH VENTILATED SUPPORT). SUBSEQUENTLY, HE WAS OBSERVED BY DOCTORS FROM TIME TO TIME. MY FATHER ALSO LOST HIS MEMORY A S HE WAS OPERATED SAH WITH ACOM ANEURYSM. NECESSARY PAPERS TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE OF THE APPELLANT IS AT TACHED HEREWITH AS PER ANNEXURE 1. AGAIN IN 21/08/2013, ANGIOGRAPHY WAS DONE AT APOLLO HOSPITAL FOR HEART RELATED PROBLEMS. NECESSARY PAPE RS TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE OF THE APPELLANT IS ATTACHED HER EWITH AS PER ANNEXURE-2. THEN AGAIN ON 03/04/2015 TO 07/04/2015, MY FATHER WAS ADMITTED IN STERLING HOSPITAL FOR BRAIN STROKE AND COMPLETE LEFT SIDE PARALYSIS. DUE TO REPETITIVE BRA IN STROKE AND PARALYSIS HE LOST, HIS MEMORY AND TOOK V ERY LONG TIME TO RECOVER FROM UNSTABLE MENTAL CONDITION , NECESSARY PAPERS TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE IS ATTACHED HEREWITH AS PER ANNEXURE 3. DUE TO DETERIORATING HEALTH CONDITION, MY FATHER LO OSE HIS MEMORY AND ALSO NOT ABLE TO INFORM ME ABOUT RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON MY BEHALF. AT PRESENT ALSO MY FATHER SUFFERS FROM MEMORY LOSS. IN MONTH OF JUNE 2015, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CONTACTING ME THROUGH PHONE CALL REGARDING OUTSTAND ING DEMAND IN MY CASE BUT I INFORMED HIM THAT COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED TO ME. THERE WAS NO RECOVERY ACTION FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN YEAR 2016 AND TILL LAST MONTH ON DECEMBER, 2017 AND SUDDENLY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ATTACHED MY PROPERTY I.E. CAR AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BELONGING, TO ME AND ALSO ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL HOUS E OF SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 4 MY MOTHER. DUE TO DEPARTMENTAL ACTION OF ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTIES AND RECOVERY ACTION I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDERS WERE PASSED IN MY CASE. AGAINST THE ACTION OF ATTACHMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ACT ION OF AUCTION BY WAY OF NOTICE IN NEWSPAPER, I ALONG W ITH MY MOTHER FILED SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION BEFORE HO N'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT LIFTED THE ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTIES AND BANK ACCOUNTS AND ORDE RED TO CONSIDERED THE DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. COPIES OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IS ATTACHED HEREWITH AS PER ANNEXURE 4. DUE TO ABOVE FACTS, THERE IS A DELAY OF 1047 DAYS (APPROX.AS CORRECT DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER IS NOT KNOWN TO ASSESSEE) IN FILING .APPEAL FOR WHICH I PRAY YOU R HONOUR TO CONDONE THE SAME AND DECIDE THE APPEALS O N MERITS. I DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY CONFIRM THAT WHATEVER IS STATE D ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH HIS TAX CONSULTANT AND TOOK ADJOU RNMENTS. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER HE FAILED TO APPEAR. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENAL TY WAS SERVED ON HIS FATHER, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THIS ASSERT ION IS PATENTLY FALSE. THESE ORDERS WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON HIS FATHER. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE TWO REASONS, THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDE D A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR F ILING THE APPEAL BEYOND PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SUB-SECTION 5 OF SECTION 253 CONT EMPLATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR PERMIT FILING OF ME MORANDUM OF CROSS- OBJECTIONS AFTER EXPIRY OF RELEVANT PERIOD, IF IT I S SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THA T PERIOD. THIS SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 5 EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED IN THE SECTI ON HAS ALSO BEEN USED IDENTICALLY IN SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 249 OF INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH PROVIDES POWERS TO THE LD.COMMISSIONER TO CON DONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. SIMILA RLY, IT HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 5 OF INDIAN LIMITATION ACT, 1963. WHENE VER INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS EXPRESSION HAS FALLEN FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT, THEN, HONBLE COURT WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR CONCLUSION TH AT THIS EXPRESSION IS TO BE USED LIBERALLY. WE MAY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTH ERS, 1987 AIR 1353: 1. ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITO RIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED TH E HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERI TS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT M EAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOU R'S DELAY, EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERA TIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DE SERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE V ESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DE LAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALA FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING T O DELAY. IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED N OT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUND S BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 6 8. SIMILARLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO AU THORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N.BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY (SUPRA). IT READS AS UNDER: RULE OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RI GHT OF PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS, BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A LEGAL REMEDY IS TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY REAS ON OF LEGAL INJURY. LAW OF LIMITATION FIXES A LIFE-SPAN FOR SUC H LEGAL REMEDY FOR THE REDRESS OF THE LEGAL INJURY SO SUFFERED. TIME I S PRECIOUS AND THE WASTED TIME WOULD NEVER REVISIT. DURING EFFLUX OF TIME NEWER CAUSES WOULD SPROUT UP NECESSITATING NEWER PERSONS TO SEEK LEGAL REMEDY BY APPROACHING THE COURTS. SO A LIFE SPAN MU ST BE FIXED FOR EACH REMEDY. UNENDING PERIOD FOR LAUNCHING THE REMEDY MAY LEAD TO UNENDING UNCERTAINTY AND CONSEQUENTIAL ANAR CHY. LAW OF LIMITATION IS THUS FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY. IT IS ENSHRINED IN THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UP SIT FINIS LITIUM (IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THAT A PERIOD BE PUTT TO LITIGATION). RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMED Y MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME . A COURT KNOWS THAT REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY WOULD R ESULT FORECLOSING A SUITOR FROM PUTTING FORTH HIS CAUSE. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IN APPROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE. THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORDS 'SUF FICIENT CAUSE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD RECEIV E A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE V IDE SHAKUNTALA DEVI LAIN VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [AIR 1969 SC 575] AND S TATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [ AIR 1972 SC 749]. IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT IN EVERY CASE OF D ELAY THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCE RNED. THAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HIS PLEA AND TO SH UT THE DOOR AGAINST HIM. IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SMACK OF M ALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. BUT WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO THINK THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCASIONED BY TH E PARTY DELIBERATELY TO GAIN TIME THEN THE COURT SHOULD LEA N AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXPLANATION. WHILE CONDONING DELA Y THE COULD SHOULD NOT FORGET THE OPPOSITE PARTY ALTOGETHER. IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT HE IS A LOOSER AND HE TOO WOULD HAVE I NCURRED QUIET A LARGE LITIGATION EXPENSES. IT WOULD BE A SALUTARY G UIDELINE THAT WHEN COURTS CONDONE THE DELAY DUE TO LACHES ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT THE COURT SHALL COMPENSATE THE OPPOSITE P ARTY FOR HIS LOSS. SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 7 WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RE-CITE OR RECAPITUL ATE THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN OTHER DECISIONS. IT IS SU FFICE TO SAY THAT THE HONBLE COURTS ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR APPROACH TO P ROPOUND THAT WHENEVER THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY AN APPLICANT FOR E XPLAINING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THEN SUCH REASONS ARE TO BE C ONSTRUED WITH A JUSTICE ORIENTED APPROACH. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE FA CTS. THE FIRST REASON ASSIGNED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR NOT ENTERTAINI NG EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO HE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 14.11.2014, AND THEREAFTE R DID NOT APPEAR. THEREFORE, IT SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWLE DGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE DELIBERATELY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SECOND REASON, THE LD.CIT(A) H AS OBSERVED THAT DEMAND NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 5.1.2015 AND NOT ON HIS FATHER ON 31.3.2015. S HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SHRI A.M. SHAH HAS MADE A REQUEST TO THE AO FO R STAY OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AND THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON 13.9.201 6. THUS, THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL UPTO 7.2 .2018. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SUGGEST THAT NO DOUBT THERE IS SOME NEGLIGENCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDUCTIN G HIS INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO ASC ERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 14.11.2014. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NOTHING TO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED UPON FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ORIGINAL ACKNO WLEDGE RECEIPT HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE RECORD. HOWEVER, CONSIDERIN G THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM TAX LIABILITY OF RS.22,72,460/ - HAS BEEN FASTENED BY VIRTUE OF AN EX PARTE ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.7,40,871/- WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY IS FAR DIS PROPORTIONATE WITH THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. THE POSSIBILITY OF ILLNESS OF HIS FATHER COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. HIS HOUSE WAS ATTACHED AND HE HAS TO AP PROACH HONBLE HIGH SP NO.39 AND 40/AHD/2018 WITH ITA 8 COURT BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION BEARING SCA NO.1403 O F 2018. COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.67 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT BY MAKING APPEALS TIME BARRED THE ASSE SSEE WOULD NOT ACHIEVE ANYTHING. THE TAX LIABILITY WOULD BE CONFI RMED AND IT COULD BE RECOVERED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THIS MODUS OPERANDI AS A STRATEGY. IT MIGHT BE A BONA FIDE NEGLIGENCE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. CONSIDERING THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AU THORITIES BELOW, WE IMPOSE A COST OF RS.2,500/- UPON THE ASSESSEE ON EA CH APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE SHALL DEPOSIT THE COST WITHIN ONE MONTH FR OM THE RECEIPT OF ORDER. THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE BOTH THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND SHALL NOT SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT UNLESS SITUATION SO WARRANT S. 11. SO FAR AS STAY PETITIONS ARE CONCERNED, THEY BE COME REDUNDANT AND HENCE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, AND BOTH STAY PETITIONS ARE DI SMISSED AS BEING REDUNDANT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH MAY, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/05/2018