Ashok Ahuja, Panchkula V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1065/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8938 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 10(10AA)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1065/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. ASHOK AHUJA, VS. THE ITO, WARD 5(1), PANCHKULA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AANPA9843L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. M.R. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, GURAON DATED 26.08.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS SESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 2,48,561/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL AND TAKEN VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') OF RS. 5 LAKHS. HOWEVER, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS TO TAX BY CLAIMING THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER 2 PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) ON 30.11.2009. THE ASSE SSEE HOWEVER, PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THIS ADD ITION ON 1.12.2011. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TIME BARRED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30 .11.2009 ADMITTEDLY HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 22.12.2009 W HICH MAKES THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL AS 21.1.2010. HOWEVER, THE AP PEAL IS FILED ON 1.12.2009 WITH A DELAY OF ABOUT 680 DAYS. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSES SEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(10 C) OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE AND HE WAS ADVISED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL DUE TO THE REASONS THAT IN CASE APPEAL IS PREFERRED, PE NALTY WOULD BE ATTRACTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO AS SURED THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PREFER APPEAL AND ONLY ON THIS CONDITION PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD TO GO OUT OF COUNTRY IN CONNECTION WITH FAMILY AFFAIRS AND REMAI N OUT OF INDIA DURING THE PERIOD 26.7.2010 TO 15.1.2011. THE ASSESSEE CAM E TO KNOW ON 15.11.2011 FROM HIS COLLEAGUES THAT THEY HAVE FILE D APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND SUCCEEDED IN THE CASE AND ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED AS PER JUDGEMENT OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BEA CH DATED 1.11.2011, IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM JIT PASSI. IT WAS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BE CONDONED . 3 4. THE LD CIT(A) NOTED THAT BEFORE GOING ABROAD IN JULY 2010, THE ASSESSEE HAD 6 MONTHS TIME TO FILE THE APPEAL AND FURTHER HE CAME BACK TO INDIA IN JANUARY 2011, HE DID NOT FILE APPEAL TILL DECEMBER 2011. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS THEREFORE, NOT CONDONED. 5 I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PART IES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF MADAN MOHAN SHARMA V ITO IN ITA NO. 1165/CHD./2012 DATED 17.6.2 015 IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE TRIBUNAL CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 4 TO 7 ARE REPROD UCED AS UNDER:- 4. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.2,23,430/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.5 LACS AS EXEMP T UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,86,346 /- BEING THE AMOUNT OF EX-GRATIA RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HIS THE THEN EMPLOYER, STATE BANK OF PATIALA AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT UNDER THE SCHEME KNOWN AS EX IT OPTION SCHEME FLOATED BY THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED GRATUITY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT, WHICH AMOUNT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 10(10C) AND 10(10AA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE ACT. 4 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.9.2012 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WAS A DELAY OF ABOUT 11 MONTHS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF ABOUT 11 MONTHS IN FILING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NO T GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 6. I HAVE HEARD SHRI M.R. SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND SHRI R.K.GUPTA, LEARNED D. R FOR THE REVENUE AT LENGTH AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT FRO M THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 13.12.2010 AND T HE RELEVANT NOTICE OF DEMAND AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.12.2010. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) ON 21.12.2011. THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF ABOUT 11 MONTHS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALONGW ITH MEMO OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. THE REASON FOR THE DEL AY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE COULD NOT FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE REAS ONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL DUE TO THE REASONS THAT IN CASE THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED THE PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO T HE PENALTY WOULD BE ATTRACTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ON 15.12.2011 CAME TO KNOW THAT HIS OTHER COLLEAGUES H AVE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE 5 AUTHORITIES AND MOST OF THEM HAD SUCCEEDED IN SUCH APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER, WHO INFORM ED HIM THAT HE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE REFUND AS A RES ULT OF THE APPEAL FILED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE AND AS SUCH, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE ISSUE APPEALED AGAINST WAS COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR AS PER T HE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGAR H IN ITA NO.925/CHD/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 1.11.2011 IN T HE CASE OF SHRI BIKRAM JIT PASSI VS. DCIT, AMBALA CA NTT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SHRI BIKRAM JIT PASSI WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, A SIMILARLY SITUATED AND HAD SOUGHT RETIREMENT UNDER THE SAID SCHEME. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) H ELD THAT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY GENERAL IN NATURE. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE. AT THE STAGE, IT WILL WORTHWHILE TO REFER THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW DATED 24.8.2007 IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARUN ROHTAGI & OTHER S VS. ITO 4(1), KANPUR & OTHERS IN ITA NO.1275/LUC/2006 TO 1279/LUC/2006 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHEREIN THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHARAN SINGH VS. ITO-1(1), LUCKN OW IN ITA NO.461/LUC/2007 & OTHERS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 6 '3. I.T.A. NOS. 461, 462, 463, 464 AND 469 ARE FIL ED LATE, BY 324, 325, 325, 324 AND 329 DAYS RESPECTIVELY. AN - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED . THE MASON GIVEN BY THEM IS THAT THEY WERE ADVISED BY TH EIR CONSULTANTS NOT TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHO IS HIGHEST AUTHORITY 'IN THE DEPARTMENT. THE EMPLOY EES WERE CONSTANTLY IN SEARCH OF THE EXACT LEGAL POSITION RE GARDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT. IT WAS A/SO E XPLAINED TO THEM THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY RBI ON THES E PAYMENTS AND THEREFORE EMPLOYEES WERE UNDER THE BON AFIDE BELIEF THAT THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE TAXABLE UND ER L.T. ACT, 1961. HOWEVER ON 28/3/2007, BOMBAY TRIBUNAL HAD IN 222 APPEALS OF THE RBI EMPLOYEES HELD THAT THEY ARE ENT ITLED TO BENEFIT U/S 10(1 OC) AND ALSO U/S 89(1). FOLLOWING THAT DECISION, THE EMPLOYEES HAVE FILED THE APPEAL. THE DELAY IS THEREFORE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCORRECT LEGAL ADVIC E. APPEAL IS FILED AFTER KNOWING AN ORDER OF THE BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE EMPLOYEES. ON THIS BASIS, THESE EMPLOYEES HA VE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. ON THIS ISSUE WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED D. R. WHO H AS' SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON SO ADVANCED COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE SATISFACTORY. AN ASSESSEE, WHO IS NOT VIGILANT ABOU T HIS RIGHT, COULD NOT BE HELPED BY THE MACHINERY PROVIDE D IN THE STATUTE. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSES SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, DELAY IN FILING APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. IN OU R VIEW, DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BY THE ABOVE EMPLOYEES NEEDE D TO BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF IMPARTING SUBSTANTIAL J USTICE. HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VENKATADRI TRADERS LIMITED VS CIT (2001) 248 ITR 681 HELD THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AN APPLICATION (FOR REVISION IN THAT CASE) THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY IS NOT ALL TOGE THER EXCLUDE FROM CONSIDERATION THE MERITS OF THE REVISION PETITION. IF THE CASE OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT A LIBERAL VIEW BE TAKEN THEN A LIBERAL VIEW WOULD INDEED BE WARRANTED. IT IS NOT THE POLICY OF THE ACT TO ENABLE THE STATE TO COLLECT MONEY, FROM CITIZEN AND RETAIN THE SAME EVEN WHEN THE MONEY 1$ NOT REQUIRED TO BE PAID AS TAX. - THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ERRONEOUSLY CANNOT BY ITSELF BE ALLOWED TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THE RELIEF BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSES. IF RELIEF IS PERMISSIBLE BY EXERCISE OF A DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED IN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY THEN THESE AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED TO EXERCISE SUCH DISCRETIONARY POWER IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF THE ASSES SEE. IN VOLTAS LIMITED VS. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 471, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE 7 A.P. HIGH COURT THAT A PARTY SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE LAPS ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL AND OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE G IVEN TO THE PARTIES TO HAVE A DECISION ON MERITS. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PRAMOD BANSAL AND SONS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1999) 237 ITR 65 HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS AN ADVERSE DECISION OF A HIGH COURT THEN IT IS F UTILE TO FILE AN APPEAL BUT WHERE THAT DECISION OF HIGH COURT IS REV ERSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THEN THE DELAY OCCURRED IN F ILING THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION SHOUL D BE CONDONED 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT FILE APPEALS TO THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT RBI HAD DEDUCTED TA X AND THEIR COUNSEL HAD ADVISED AGAINST FILING APPEAL TO THE TR IBUNAL. BUT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (BOMBAY BENCH) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSES, THE APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED AND THERE IS NO DELAY THEREAFTER. IN VIEW OF THIS AND IN ORDER TO IMPART JUSTICE TO THESE EMPLOYEES, WE DO NOT FIND HESITATI ON IN CONDONING THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. THEIR E XPLANATION IS SATISFACTORY AND IS ACCEPTED. 7. AS A RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED FOR DECISION ON MERITS. 7. IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT FILE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE RBI HAD DEDUCTED TAX AND THEIR COUNSEL HAD ADVISED AGAINST FILING OF THE APPEALS. BUT AFTER RECEIPT O F THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. (BOMBAY BENCH) IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSES, THE APPEALS WERE FILED AND THERE WAS NO DELAY THEREAFTER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IN ORDER TO IMPART JUSTICE TO TH E EMPLOYEES/ASSESSES THE DELAY DESERVES TO BE CONDONE D. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL CONDONED THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEALS. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSE E WAS ADVISED NOT TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SHRI BIKRAM JIT PASSI (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER IMMEDIATELY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL S). 8 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE OF SHRI ARUN ROHTAGI & OTHERS (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARUN ROHTAGI & OTHERS (SUPRA) I HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL . ACCORDINGLY, I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR DECISION ON MERITS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEWS THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED IN THE MATT ER. THE SIMILAR CASE HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF MADAN MOHAN SHARMA (SUPRA) AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL HAVE BEEN CONDONED. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO LEGAL ADVISE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL AND FURTHER THAT WHEN HE CAME TO INDIA IN JANUARY 2011, HE CAME TO KNOW ON 15.11.2011 THAT ITAT CHANDIGARH HAS ALLOWED THE APPEALS ON SIM ILAR MATTER, IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM JIT PASSI VIDE ORDER DATED 1.11.2011 , THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO FILE THE APPEAL AFTER COMING FROM ABRO AD IN JANUARY 2011 AS IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE WHEN THE TRIBUNAL P ASSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM JIT PASSI ONLY ON 1.11.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN DECEMBER 2011 , THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF MADA N MOHAN SHARMA AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM SATISFIED THAT AS SESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM IS CONDO NED. 9 7. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS TO TAX BY CLAIMING THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C) OF THE ACT AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT MATTER WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION HA VE TO BE CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FIN DINGS, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE ON MERIT, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS, TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY GIVI NG REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSES SEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR