I.T.O.-, Ward-3(2), Gwalior V. Shri O.P.Bhargava, Gwalior

ITA 105/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60133 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 273B; 271E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 105/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI O.P. BHARGAVA, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR. PROP. M/S. SAMIDHA GAS AGENC Y, 64, PREM NAGAR, GWALIOR. (PAN : ABVPB 5346 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.04.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 26.02.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 CHALLENGING THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271E OF THE IT ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTIC ED BY THE AO FROM THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSING THE AUDIT REPORT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOANS ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 2 FROM 20 PERSONS IN A SUM OF RS.40,29,000/-. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID LOANS IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 269T OF THE IT ACT. ON BEING ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY U/S. 271E OF THE I T ACT WAS IMPOSED. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS IN NUMBER OF CASES U/S. 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTR UMENT ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NI ACT) HAS BEEN INITIATED BY VARIOUS LEN DERS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DUE TO BOUNCING AND DISHONOURING OF CHEQUES ISSUED BY HIM. COPY OF THE CASE FILED BY ONE MRS. UMA RATHI W/O SHRI K.K. RATHI HAS BEEN FIL ED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS OF SIX PERSONS OUT OF 20 LENDE RS, NAMELY, SHRI DEEPAK KHANDELWAL, SHRI HARI MOHAN DUBEY, SHRI R.K. SHARMA , SHRI K.K. BHARGAVA, SMT. SUSHMA BHARGAVA AND M/S. R.S. BUILDERS, WHEREB Y IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE SAID LENDERS HAVE TAKEN THE LOAN BACK IN CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVITS WHICH ARE MAINLY BECAUS E THE ASSESSEES CREDIBILITY IN THE MARKET IS DOUBTFUL, AS THE CHEQUES HAVE BOUNCED IN THE PAST AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE LENDERS IN T HE COURT AT GWALIOR. THE LD. CIT(A) ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE CAUSE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH LO ANS HAVE BEEN REPAID IN CASH AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAINI MEDICAL STORE, 277 ITR 420, IN WHICH IT WA S HELD THAT A COMBINED MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271E AND 273B OF THE IT ACT MAKES IT CLEAR ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 3 THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR T HE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHY ANY PROVISION REFERRED THERETO, THE PENALTY FOR ITS VIO LATION SHALL NOT BE IMPOSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE DULY BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE CONTRAVENT ION IS NOT RESULTED IN ANY UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS CAN CELLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE BE FORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE HIM THAT THE LENDERS INSIS TED FOR CASH PAYMENT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNIS HED BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CANCELLED THE PENALT Y. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF 20 PERSONS WHOM THE ASSESSEE REPAID THE LOA N IN CASH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ONL Y A COPY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT IN CASE OF MRS. UMA RATHI WHOSE NAME DID NOT FIGURE IN THE LIST OF 20 PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVITS OF ONLY 6 PERSONS HAVE BEEN FILED OUT OF 20 LENDERS BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE ALSO NOT SUBJECTED TO EXAMINATION OR CROSS-EXAMINAT ION BY THE AO. THEREFORE, RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES IS VIOLATED IN THE MATTER. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE REVERSED BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE IS FILED TO PROVE IF ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE T O COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THA T AFFIDAVITS OF SIX PERSONS WERE FILED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT NO SPEC IFIC GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES IN THE MATTER. HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE IF THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROV ED REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE MAI NLY DUE TO LITIGATION U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS SU BMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO LOSS HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS O F LAW. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELING THE PENALTY BY AP PLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE IT ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS : (I). CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE, 277 ITR 420 (P&H ) (II). WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 1 18 TAXMAN 433 (DEL.) (III). ADI(INV.) VS. KUM. A.B. SHANTHI, CHAMUNDI G RANITES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, 255 ITR 258. (IV). HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA, 83 ITR 26 (SC) 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SECTIO N 271E OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE IT ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 5 ACT IF THE ASSESSEE REPAYS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHE RWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE PROVISION AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABL E TO PENALTY. SECTION 269T OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT REPAY A NY LOAN OR DEPOSIT MADE WITH IT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUN T PAYEE BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN THE NAME OF PERSON WHO HAS MADE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE THEREON, IS RS. 20,000/- OR MORE. SECTION 273B OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY SHALL B E IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFER RED TO IN SECTION 271E OF THE IT ACT, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FO R THE SAID FAILURE. THEREFORE, BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXIS TS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS TO THE LENDERS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269T OF THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REPAID THE LOANS TO 20 LENDERS IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE N OTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AND THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY BEFORE THE AO STATED THAT SINCE NUMBER OF CASES DUE TO BOUNCING OF CHEQU ES HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE LENDERS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT , THEREFORE, THE LENDERS WERE NOT READY TO ACCEPT REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THEY INSISTED TO RECEIVE CASH AGAINST REPAYMENT OF LOANS. THE ASSESS EE, HOWEVER, DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE CONT ENTION. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 6 FIRST TIME PRODUCED COPY OF ONE OF THE CASE FILED B Y MRS. UMA RATHI BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT NAME OF MRS. UMA RATHI DID NOT FIND MENTIO N IN THE LIST OF 20 LENDERS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER. THEREFORE, TH E LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AS TO HOW THE CASE FILED BY MRS. UMA RATHI WAS RELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY. DURING THE C OURSE OF ARGUMENT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT N THE CASE OF MRS. UMA RATHI WERE RELEVANT TO T HE PENALTY MATTER BECAUSE HER NAME DID NOT FIGURE IN THE LIST OF 20 LENDERS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FILED SIX AFFIDAVITS OF LENDE RS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF 20 LENDERS NAMED IN THE PENALTY ORDER . NOTHING IS CLARIFIED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IF THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE RE MAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE AFFIDAVITS OF SIX PERSONS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 6.1 RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES PROVIDES AS UNDER : PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUC E BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY B E, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY : (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 7 (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPO N TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVI DENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORD ER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY B E, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASO NS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE C ASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS -EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY W ITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHAN CEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271. 6.2 IN THE ABOVE RULE, CERTAIN CONDITIONS HAVE BEE N PROVIDED AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SATISFY THE LD. CIT (A) ON SUCH CONDITIONS, THE ADDITIONAL ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 8 EVIDENCES COULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) BY RECORDING THE REASONS FOR THEIR ADMISSION IN WRITING. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNLESS THE AO HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THESE E VIDENCES OR DOCUMENTS OR TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES. 6.3 EVEN IF NO SPECIFIC GROUND IS TAKEN BY THE REVE NUE FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, BUT THE ABOVE RULE IS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE CONTROVERSY IN THE MATTER BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND SIX AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WHICH WERE NEITHER EXAMINED NOR CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE AO BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FOLLOW RULE 46A OF T HE IT RULES IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH COU LD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE CAUSE I N THE MATTER. THE REASONABLE CAUSE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IF THE ASSESSEE PR ODUCED RELEVANT AND COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE LENDERS INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENT BE CAUSE THE CHEQUES WERE BOUNCED BUT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WAS FILED AND ONLY SIX AFFIDAVITS OUT OF 20 LENDERS WERE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION OF R ULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO REASONS FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO CANCEL THE PENALTY AT LEAST IN THE CASES OF REMAINING 14 LENDERS THOUGH FOR 6 LEND ERS ALSO, THE AFFIDAVITS WERE ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. WE MAY NOTE HERE THAT IF ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 9 PROCEEDINGS U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT WERE FILED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 138 COULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CONCERNED COURT AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THE CRIMINAL COURT TH AT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER PENDING IN THE CRIMINAL CO MPLAINT. THEREFORE, THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ORDER SHEET AND RECEIPTS OF THE REPAYM ENT ARE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO THROW LIGHT ON THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT IS A CASE WHERE ONLY SIX AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND FOR REM AINING 14 LENDERS, NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NOTHING BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE IF THERE EXISTS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO CO MPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THROUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE RE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPOR T OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON NO EVIDENCE AND IS PERVERSE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 138 OF THE NI ACT BEFORE THE CIT(A ) AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE COULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO PROVE HIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ACCORDING SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITA NO.105/AGRA/2010 10 THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE WI TH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL FOLLOW RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES IN THE MATTER AND SHALL EXAMINE EACH EVIDENCE IN DETAIL IN RESPECT OF EACH LENDER BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE DECISION IN THE MATTER. SINCE IT IS OLD APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO EXPEDITE THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL PREFERABLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS F ROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED 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, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY