M/sPandey Transport Co., Sonebhadra V. ITO, Mirzapur

ITA 12/ALLD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3914 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD (SMC) BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.12/ALLD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S.PANDEY TRANSPORT AGENCY, SINDURIYA, CHOPAN, SONEBHADRA [PAN: AAEFP7577M] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-3(3), MIRZAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI A.K.SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-11-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-11-2020 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-ALLAHABAD FOR THE AY.2008-09. IN THIS A PPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 28.12.2010 IS BAD BOTH ON THE FATS AND IN LAW AND BY SUCH ORDER INCOME AS DETERMINE AT RS. 9,92,880.00 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE LEARNED CIT ( APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN PASSING EX-PARTY ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE ORDER IS NOT SPEAKING ORDER IN THE EYES OF LAW. 3. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN SO FAR AS WITHIN 12 MONTHS THERE WAS NO ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 2 -: SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT, HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS LIA BLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE GROSS RECEIPT AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IS TRUE AND CORRECT WHICH WAS ESTIMATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 1,24,06,975.00 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER ABOUT NON-DISCLOSURE OF CORRECT RECEIPT FROM M/S. N AGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO. IS NOT CORRECT. 5. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER EXTRA ADDITION OF RS. 5,29,882.00 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AND BASIS ON RECORD . 6. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER FINDINGS AND OBSE RVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER REGARDING ALLEGED SU PPRESSION AND ABOUT PROFIT ARE INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ACTU AL FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ADDITION OF RS. 4 ,26,830.00 BY SAYING UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL FROM INTRODUCED BY THE T WO PARTNERS IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 8. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE PARTNERS DEPO SITED THE CAPITAL FROM DEFINITE SOURCES, HENCE THE ADDITION IS UNWARR ANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER CHARGE OF PENAL I NTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B AND 234-D OF THE ACT IS HIGHLY UNJUST IFIED. 10. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE APPELLANT RE SERVES HIS RIGHT TO TAKE ANY FRESH GROUND BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL . 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQ UIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS REGARDING EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE OTHER GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION/DISALLOWAN CE. 4. GROUND NO.3 IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF A V ALID NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT]. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 3 -: THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT HOW THE NO TICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ON 25-08- 2009 IS INVALID. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATE D IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE U/S.1 43(2) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE, WHEN THIS OBJECTION WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NOT DISPUTED THE SERVICE OF NOTIC E ISSUED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, THEN IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DISP UTE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT ON 25-08-2009, WHICH IS WITHIN THE LIMITATION PE RIOD AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUCH SECTION, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROU ND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NOS.4 & 6 ARE REGARDING TRADING ADDITION B EING THE NET PROFIT @10% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS 5.7% . 5.1. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2008, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.26,01,160/-. 5.2. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES AND DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSES SEE WERE REJECTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ESTIMATED THE INCOME O F THE ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 4 -: ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE BEFORE DEPREC IATION @10% ON THE TOTAL PAYMENTS, WHICH WAS RE-WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1,24,06,975/-, AFTER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,58,492/-, AS UN-ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A TRADIN G ADDITION OF RS.5,29,882/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, NOBODY HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS/HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER. 5.3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.15,58,492/- TO BE THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE , WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS PART A ND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.59,70,453/- RECEIVED FROM M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO., AGAINST WHICH TDS OF RS.67,653/-, WAS DEDUCTED AND HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. LD.AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THIS FACT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE FACTS P OINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE LD.AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.15,58,492/- IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT OF SUCH INFLATED RECEIPT IS UNJUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER @10%, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED AN ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE NET PROFIT RATE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY COM PARABLE ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 5 -: OR PREVAILING RATE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE COMPARATIVE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS.2007-08 & 2009-10 AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE AY.200 7- 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT @5.8% WHICH W AS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY FOR THE AY.2009- 10, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET PROFIT @3% WHICH WAS ALS O ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE NE T PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION WAS @5.70% IS ACCORDING TO THE LINE OF THE PAST HISTORY AS WELL AS FUTURE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE LD.AR HAS SU BMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPL YING THE NET PROFIT @10% IS TRULY ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED AN D THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 5.4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY BY ISSUIN G A NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO. , AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTIO N CO., ISSUED SECOND CERTIFICATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.15,58, 492/-. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION TO TH E GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATI ON AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AS MANY AS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOBODY HAS ATTENDED TH E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CI T(A) WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO PASS AN EX-PARTE ORDER. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE PRODUCT RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS OTHER DISCREPANCIES, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 6 -: OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATED ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE NET PROFIT @10%, WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE AND PROPER. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO., CALLING FOR INFORMATION REGARDING TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH IN COME HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT VIDE TWO TDS CERTIFICATES, ON E OF RS.59,70,453/-, WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE OTHER ONE FOR RS.15,58,492/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SECOND PAYMENT OF RS.15,58,492/- WAS NOT ACCOUNTED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE GROS S RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE ARE SOME CLAI MS OF FUEL EXPENSES, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS HELD THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GIVING A TRUE PICTURE OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLE NGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO COMPLETE THE ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 7 -: ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT, BY APPLYING SOME REASONABLE AND PROPER CRITERIA. SO F AR AS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF THE INC OME, IT IS A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE MERE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WOULD NOT IS SO FACTO RESULT AN ADDITION IF THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IS EITHER IN THE LINE WITH THE PAST HISTORY OR BETTER THAN TH E PAST HISTORY OF PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING Y EAR IS A REASONABLE AND PROPER GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATING THE INC OME AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED NET PROFIT @10% BEFORE DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE @5.70%, IT IS EVIDENT F ROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CITE D ANY COMPARABLE CASE OR ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE ADOPTION OF NET PET @10%. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE NET PROFIT @5.85% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.200 7-08 AND NET PROFIT @3% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY. 2009- 10 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WEL L AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A REASONABLE AND PROPER GUIDANCE TO ESTIMATE THE IN COME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE F ACT THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE AVERAGE OF NET PROFIT FOR THE AYS.2007-08 AND 2009-10 , THEN, ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 8 -: EVEN AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO TRADING ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 5.6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPT FROM M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR RS.15,58,492/- IT IS NOTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, THE SAID COMPA NY HAS FURNISHED INFORMATION OF PAYMENT OF RS.59,70,453/- AS WELL AS RS.15,58,492/- TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT BOTH THE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE DATED 21 -06- 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT HE H AS REPORTED ONLY RS.59,70,453/- BUT CONTENDED THAT THIS AMO UNT OF RS.15,58,492/- IS PART AND PARCEL OF RS.59,70,453 /-. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE FACT APPEARING FROM THE CERTIFIC ATES ISSUED BY M/S.NAGARJUN CONSTRUCTION CO. THOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, ONCE THE SAID PAYMENT WA S ACCRUED AND BECOME DUE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUN TANCY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE TDS CREDIT AGAI NST THE SAID AMOUNT, THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING TDS CREDIT SH ALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ONCE THE SAID AMOUNT IS ADDED TO THE GROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.15,58,492/- IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS IS CO NFIRMED. GROUND NOS.4 & 6 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.5 IS REGARDING PROTECTIVE ADDITION SO MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UN-EXPLAINED CAPI TAL ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 9 -: INTRODUCED BY THE TWO PARTNERS OF ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM A S TWO NEW PARTNERS WERE INTRODUCED IN PLACE OF TWO OUT GOIN G PARTNERS. THESE TWO PARTNERS HAVE INVESTED A TOTAL CAP ITAL OF RS.4,36,830/- BUT THEY ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. ACCORD INGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF CAPITA L INTRODUCED BY TWO PARTNERS IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED IN TH EIR HANDS ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE- FIRM ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 6.1. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERI AL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MADE ONLY PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE-FIRM AND PROPOSED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERS, THEREFORE, THE FATE OF THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IS DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION MA DE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION, IF ANY, MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND FURTHER, WHETHER T HE SAID ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) OR NOT? ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) EX-PARTE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS MATERIAL FACT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION, IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE OUTCOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION, IF ANY, MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO.12 /ALLD/2018 :- 10 -: PARTNERS. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GI VEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, BEFORE PASSING A FRESH ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ALLAHABAD, DATED: 04-11-2020 TNMM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT, ALLAHABAD)