The ITO, Ward-6(2), Surat V. Smt. Geetaben jayeshkumar Rana, Surat

ITA 1146/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5559 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Third party statement; Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 143(2); 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' [BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ] ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-1999-2000) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2), ROOM NO. 606-D, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT V/S SMT. GEETABEN JAYESHKUMAR RANA, 6/42, 90-91, 3 RD FLOOR, SUTHAR FALIA, GALEMANDI, SURAT [PAN: AGLPR 1194 H} [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI K M MAHESH, DR ASSESSEE BY:- NONE O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 03-0 1- 2007 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A), SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,36,770/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.68 OF THE I.T . ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,77,328/- AND INTEREST OF RS.49,580 /- MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA HAS ADMITTED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF MANIPUL ATING THE OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL AND CREATING BOGUS GIFTS OR INTE REST ON LOAN TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS I.E. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SH EET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THEY ARE N OT LOOSE SHEETS, SCRAP PAPERS, ETC. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A), SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED. ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 2 2 AT THE OUTSET, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. EVEN ON E ARLIER HEARINGS ON 9.9.2008 &17.5.2010, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFT ER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3 FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT IN THIS CASE A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS ISSUED ON 21-3-2006 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF A SURVEY IN THE PREMISE S OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CA. DURING THE SURVEY A NUMBER OF DOCUMEN TS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HER RETURN NOR MADE ANY SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. EVEN SUBSEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED ON 19-5-06 AND A S HOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17-10-2006 U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WE NT UNRESPONDED. THEREAFTER, A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17-07-2 006 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] FIXING THE DA TE OF HEARING ON 27-07-2006. THE SAID NOTICE READS AS UNDER: ON ANALYSIS OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF A.Y 1999-00 IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS AN ENTRY ON ASSET SIDE OF RS.535000/- OF M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS (FLAT A/C) AND RS.475000/-- OF M/S SHAH TRHADRA CONSTRUCTIONS (ROW HOUSE A/C). PLEASE GIVE EVIDENCE FOR PAYMENT OF RS.535000/- AND 475000 /- ALONG WITH COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES, COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 1999-00 ALONG WITH CAPITAL ACCOUNT AN D BALANCE SHEET OF ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PROVI DE THE BANK STATEMENT INDICATING THE ABOVE TRANSACTION WITH M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS AND M/S TRHADRA CONSTRUCTIONS. 2. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING LOANS GIVE TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE BELOW MENTIONED FORMAT: 1. NAME, ADDRESS AND PA NO, OF THE PARTIES 2. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 98-99, CA PITAL A/C AND BALANCE SHEET 3. BANK STATEMENT INDICATING THE ABOVE LO AN TRANSACTIONS ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 3 4. RATE OF INTEREST 5. CONTRA CONFIRMATION ACCOUNT, 3. COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL ACCOUNTS. 4. AS THERE WERE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, YOUR CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTIC E DATED 21-0-2008 U/S 143 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHICH WAS ONLY SERVE D UPON YOU AND YOU WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT YOUR RETURN OF INCOME BEFO RE THE UNDERSIGNED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE NOTICE, WHICH YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE I.T. A CT WAS ISSUED ON 19-5- 06 AND YOU WERE REQUESTED TO APPEAR ON 7-6-2006 AT 11.00 AM, WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED. LATER ON A NOTICE U/S 142(1) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, DATED 14-6-2006 WAS SERVED ON YOU ASKING YOU TO APP EAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 20-8-06 AT 11.30 AM. HOWEVER, ON THI S OCCASION ALSO YOU FAILED TO ATTEND PERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE. LATER ON A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, DATED 10-07-2006 WAS SERVED ON YOU ASKING YOU TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDER SIGNED ON 19-07-06 AT 10.30 A.M. BUT YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN A LAST AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 27-7-2006 AT 11.30 A.M AND GIVE YOUR SUBMISSIONS, FAILING WHICH IT SHA LL BE DEEMED THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS MATTER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE FINALIZED ON MERITS U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T ACCORDING TO LAW AND DATA AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO ADJOURNMENT WILL BE AC CORDED ON ANY PRETENCE, AS THE MATTER IS TIME BARRING ONE.' 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THI S SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ALSO ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLE TE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN TWO PROPERTIES-RS .5,35,000/- WITH M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS (FLAT A/C) AND RS.4,75,0 00/- WITH M/S SHAI TRBHADRA CONSTRUCTION (ROW HOUSE A/C) BESIDES ADVANCING LOANS/ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS REVEALED FROM HER BALALNCESHEET DETAILED HEREUNDER:- LIABILITIES AMOUNT ASSETS AMOUNT GEETABEN JAYESHKUMAR RANA 1658040 M/S KETAN TEXTILES 16400 M/S R K FABRICS 17100 M/S POONAM PRINTS 18600 M/S VANDANA PRINTS 17900 ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 4 M/S GAUTAM TEXTILES 18300 M/S DIPAK FABRICS 15500 M/S PARAS FABRICS 16300 M/S JAYESH TEXTILES 19300 M/S INDIA TEXTILES 16700 M/S REGHANA PRINTS 17100 M/S SITA RAM FABRICS 18400 M/S MUKUND TEXTILES 16500 M/S POODAR PRINTS 18100 M/S REENA PRINTS 17500 M/S MAYUR FABRICS 17600 M/S JATIN FABRICS 19100 M/S Y D FABRICS 18600 M/S MEHUL FABRICS 17100 SHRI NARESHBHAI B PATEL 17700 SMT. NITABEN B PATEL 19800 SHRI BHARATBHAI M PATEL 19800 SMT. KUSUMBEN B PATEL 19800 SHRI YATINBHAI K PATEL 19800 SMT. RASHMIBEN C PATEL 19800 M/S PRADEEPL TEXTILES 19500 SHRI JITENDRA R PATEL 19500 SMT. JIGISHABEN N PATEL 19500 SHRI RAKESHBHAI N PATEL 19500 SMT. JAYABEN R PATEL 19500 SHRI PANKAJBHAI H PATEL 19500 SMT. VASANTIBEN G PATEL 19500 M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS (FLAT ADV) A/C 535000 M/S SHAI TRHADRA CONST.(ROW HOUSE A/C) 475000 --------- CASH ON HAND 62240 --------- 1658040 1658040 4.1 THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE CAPITAL ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD SHOWN OPENING BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT RS.14,36,770/- BESIDES INTEREST FROM LOANS AND O THER INCOME AT RS.49,580/-, MISCELLANEOUS GIFT OF RS.9,362/- AND G IFT A/C AMOUNTING ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 5 TO RS.1,77,328/-, AGGREGATING RS.16,73,040/-. AFTER WITHDRAWALS OF RS.15,000/-, THE BALANCE CAPITAL OF RS.16,58,040/- WAS CARRIED FORWARD, WHICH HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR LOANS AND INVE STMENTS IN PROPERTIES AS PER BALANCE SHEET. SINCE DESPITE SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY ALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN NOR RESPONDED TO VARIOUS NOTICES AND THUS, DID NOT FURN ISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CAPITAL OF RS.14,36,770/-, INTEREST O F RS.49,580/- AND GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,77,328/- WHILE THE SAID AMOUNT W AS UTILIZED FOR LOANS/ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND INVESTMENTS I N PROPERTIES, THE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16,58,040/- BY WAY OF UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5 ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE REOPENING OF AS SESSMENT AND COMPLETION THEREOF U/S 144 OF THE ACT, IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ID. AR SUB MITTED THAT FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE RECORDED RE ASONS FOR THE SAME AND A COPY OF THE SAID REASONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FUR NISHED TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE THIS WAS NOT DONE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND FIND THAT THE A PPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, C.A. WHEN BALANCE SHEETS OF A NUMBER OF PERSONS WERE FOUND. THE APPELLANT WA S ONE SUCH PERSON AND A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A. Y.1999-20 00 REVEALED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE A0 ON ACCOU NT OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION DULY RECORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 FOR RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE WA S NOT COMPLIED WITH AND NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. SUBSEQUENT NOTIC ES U/S.143(2) AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.271(1)(B) WAS ALSO NOT COMPLI ED WITH AND DUE TO THE NON CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT AND NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES, THE AO HAD NO OCCASION TO FURNIS H A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE AP PELLANT ALSO NEVER REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF THE SAID REASONS FOR RE-OPE NING THE ASSESSMENT AND SINCE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE SAME DUE T O NON ATTENDANCE AND NON COMPLIANCE OF AC NOTICES BY THE APPELLANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, FAILS. ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 6 5.1 EVEN WHILE UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT AND ITS COMPLETION U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO NOR REQUESTED FOR COPY OF THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT , THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDIT ION OF RS.16,58,040/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SEC.68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS. AS PER THE SECT ION, A SUM SHOULD BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSE SSEE AND FOR INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS, CREDIT ENTRY IN THE B OOKS IS A MUST. THE TERM 'BOOK' ORDINARILY MEANS A COLLECTION OF SHEETS OF P APERS OR OTHER MATERIAL, BLANK, WRITTEN OR PRINTED, FASTENED OR BOUND TOGETH ER SO AS TO FORM, A MATERIAL WHOLE. LOOSE SHEETS OR SCRAP OF PAPERS CAN NOT BE TERMED AS 'BOOK' FOR THIS CAN BE EASILY DETACHED AND REPLACED . THEREFORE, SPIRAL NOTE BOOKS AND SPIRAL PADS COULD BE REGARDED AS 'BOOKS' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.68 BUT NOT THE LOOSE SHEETS CONTAINED IN A FILE . THIS HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CE NTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. V.C. SHUKLA (1998) [3 SCC 410]. I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE CREDITS ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ONLY A LOOSE SHEET IN THE FORM OF THE BALANCE S HEET WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PAR TY, SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. THESE SHEETS WERE UNSIGNED AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREF ORE, INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 IS NOT IN ORDER. IN VIEW OF T HIS, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6 THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ,DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER S SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEEE HAD ACTUALLY ADVANCED LOANS TO A NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS IN TWO PROPERTIES, FOR WH ICH INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE WITH M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS AND SHAI TRHAD RA CONSTRUCTION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY RETU RN NOR RESPONDED TO A SINGLE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 7 LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING HER RETURNS OF INCOME EVEN PRIOR T O SURVEY. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT THINK IT PROPER TO EVEN CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FR OM THE AO ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORED THE DEFINITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 2(12A) OF THE ACT AS ALSO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 292C OF THE ACT. AC CORDINGLY, THE LD. DR PLEADED THAT EITHER THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. 7 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CARED TO FILE HER RETURN NOR R ESPONDED TO ANY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO, RESULTING IN BEST JUD GMENT ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ITS COMPLETION U /S 144 OF THE ACT, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION WITHOUT DISCLOSING T HE BASIS ON WHICH ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE COMPLETED NOR RECORDED ANY FI NDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY ADVANCED LOANS TO A NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND WHETHER OR NOT TWO PROPERTIES WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE , FOR WHICH INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE WITH M/S KOHINOOR BUILDERS AND SHAI TRHADRA CONSTRUCTION. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) EVER CONFRONTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE HIM TO THE AO NOR SEEMS TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN ANY INDEPEN DENT ENQUIRIES OR EVEN CALLED FOR ANY REPORT FROM THE AO IN THE L IGHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, EVEN WHILE BEING FULLY AWA RE THAT ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT ASCERTAINED THE COMPLETE FACTS NOR PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE I NVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR LOANS ADVANCED TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHILE IGNORING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(12A) AND SEC. 292C OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 8 MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY HIM. THE APPLICA TION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS SHOULD MANIFEST ITSELF IN T HE ORDER. SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MANDATES THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. AS IS APP ARENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E, NAMELY, THAT EVERY JUDICIAL/QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUTHORITY MUST PASS RE ASONED ORDER, WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CONCERNED AUTHOR ITY TO THE ISSUES/POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS AND COMMUNICATION THEREOF HAS BEEN READ AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF FAIR PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODU CES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERAT IONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. WE MA Y POINT OUT THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEAN THE CONCLUSION. IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION.[MUKHTIAR SINGH VS . STATE OF PUNJAB,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)]. 7.1 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ,WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO S.1 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY TH AT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEE PING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. W ITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE DISPOSED OF. 8. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 IN THE APPEAL, BEING PRAYER ONLY, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFOR E, DISMISSED. ITA NO.1146/AHD/2007 FOR AY 1999-2000 SMT. GEETABEN J RANA 9 9 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23-07-2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 23-07-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. GEETABEN JAYESHKUMAR RANA, 6/42, 90/93, 3 RD FLOOR, SUTHAR FALIA, GALEMANDI, SURAT 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), SURAT ROOM NO . 606-D, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT 5. DR, BENCH-C, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD