Shri Dharmesh Sukharbhai Tandel, Nani Daman V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-4, Nani Daman

ITA 1278/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50987 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT,JM) ITA NOS. 1278, 1279 AND 1280/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99 SHRI DHARMESH SUKHARBHAI TANDEL, PARKOTA SHERI, NANI DAMAN, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD 4, JIVANJI HOTEL BUILDING, KATHIRIA, DEVKA ROAD, NANI DAMAN 396 210 PA NO. AEHPT 2163 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 1281, 1282 AND 1283/AHD/2009 B. Y.: 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99 ) SMT. MENEKBEN RAMABHAI TANDEL, PARKOTA SHERI, NANI DAMAN, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD 4, JIVANJI HOTEL BUILDING, KATHIRIA, DEVKA ROAD, NANI DAMAN 396 210 PA NO. AEHPT 2172 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 29-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 -11-2011 O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE SIX APPEALS PERTAIN TO TWO APPELLANTS INVOLVING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1997-98 A ND 1998-99. THESE SIX APPEALS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE ORDERS OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A), VALSAD ALL DATED 12-01-2009 AND 13-03-2009 RESPECTI VELY. AT THE 2 OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR, MR. M. K. PATEL HAS STATED THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE APPELLANTS IS GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFE RENCE THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 03. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN HOTEL BUILDING AMOUNTING TO RS.34,23,250/- TREAT ING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AN D LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THESE APPEALS HAVE CHEQUERED PAST. EARLIER AN O RDER WAS PASSED BY ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD DATED 22-12-2006 BEARING ITA NOS. 1209 TO 1211 AND ITA NOS. 1212 TO 1214/AHD /2002 /AHD/2002 WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 9. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES WE FIN D THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE BASIS OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE WHICH WAS NOT ACC EPTED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF THE TAX. THE FULL FACTS RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD EVEN THE REASONS AS RECORDED FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD NEITHER IN THE ORDER OF T HE A.O NOR OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SERIOUS BEFORE THE A.O IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATIO N AS 3 HAS BEEN DESIRED BY THE A.O. WE ALSO NOTED THE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O WHEN ON ONE SIDE THE A.O HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETU RN ON 29-12-2000 WHILE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATE D 26-9-2000. THESE FACTS HAVE IF NOT BEEN LOOKED INT O BY THE CIT(A). EVEN THE A.O EXCEPT THE ASSETS DISCLO SED UNDER VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE SCHEME ALTHOUGH NOT ACCE PTED NO OTHER BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM HOTEL RECEIPT, HOTEL RENT WAS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. WE THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE WILL MAK E THE ASSESSMENTS AFRESH AFTER BRINGING ON RECORD THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 AS WELL AS THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VOLUNT ARY DISCLOSURE SCHEME IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL CO - OPERATE THE A.O. IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. I F THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO CO-OPERATE THE A.O AND PROVIDE NECESSARY INFORMATION THEN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE UNDER THE VDL SCHEME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE INCOME AS MAY BE REASONABLY ESTIMATED BY THE A.O FROM THE HOTEL. ' 3. CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON, FOR AY 1997-98 THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WERE AGAIN INITIATED AND THE OBSERVATIO N OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DECLARATION UNDER THE VDIS SCHEME 4 (VDIS 97), FINANCE ACT, 1997 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 OF THE SAID ACT ON 31-12-1997. THE DECLARATION WAS ST ATED TO BE AS UNDER: SR. NO. INVESTMENTS AMOUNT (RS.) REMARKS 1 INVESTMENT IN HOTEL SUN RESORT AT KATHIRIA, NANI DAMAN 34,23,250/- 50% SHARE OF INVESTMENT 2 CASH 15,76,750/- -- TOTAL AMOUNT DISCLOSED 50,00,000/- 3.1 IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE SA ID DISCLOSURE WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE VERIFICATION DATE D 31-12-1997. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAXES ON THE SA ID DISCLOSURE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SCHEME, THEREFORE, THE SAID DI SCLOSURE WAS HELD AS VOID BY THE LEARNED CIT, SURAT VIDE LETTER DATED 23-03-1999. THAT INFORMATION WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO AND PR OCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE STARTED AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON: SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENT IN HOTEL AMOUNTI NG TO RS.34,23,250/- AND CASH OF RS.15,76,750/- HELD B Y HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELEVANT TO A. Y. 1997-98 AND HE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME A ND HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME TRULY. IT HAD BECOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I. T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15.5.1999 A ND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 1.7.1999. 5 3.2 THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION, AS NARRATE D BY THE AO, WAS THAT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE, NO RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142 (1) WAS ISSU ED AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE AO, AT LAST MOMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2000 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL WITH FOOTNOTE AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR NO INCOME HAD RECEIVED OR ACCRUED. THE V. D. I. S. RETURN WAS FILED EXPECTING THAT SOME IN COME WILL ACCRUE BY WAY OF CASH. SINCE NO INCOME WAS REC EIVED BY WAY OF CASH. THE TAX COULD NOT BE PAID AND HENCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS NIL. 3.2 IN COMPLIANCE OF ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF T HE ACT A LETTER WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 26-09-2000 AND THROUGH THE SAID LETTER IT WAS INFORMED TO THE AO THAT THE LAND HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE FROM ONE SHRI MANSINGH D CH AUHAN AS PER A WILL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF 7/12 8A OF VILLAGE TALATI. THE AOS OBJECTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PLACED ON RECORD THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT IN HOTEL. AS PER THE AO FOR WANT OF EVID ENCE NOTHING COULD BE SCRUTINIZED ESPECIALLY THE CLAIM OF INVESTMENT I N HOTEL. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOW N THE ANNUAL INCOME EARNED FROM THE SAID HOTEL AND ALSO HAD NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE INCOME EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND. RATHER, I N ONE OF THE 6 COMMUNICATION THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABIL ITY TO FURNISH ANY OTHER EVIDENCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS THE AO HAD OPTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME LINE OF ACTION AND, THEREFORE, W HATEVER WAS DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS DECLARATION AS AN INVESTMENT IN HOTEL BUILDING, THE SAME WAS TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT ONCE THE ITAT HAD DI RECTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO COOPERATE AND DO NOT PROVIDE NECE SSARY INFORMATION THEN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS SCHEME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF TH IS, NOTICES WERE AGAIN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED. LATER ON, VIDE LETT ER DATED 12-11-2007 A WILL OF ONE SHRI MANSINGH. D. CHAUHAN WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO THE CAPTIONED SET-ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT BEFOR E YOUR GOOD SELF AS UNDER:- REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOTEL BUILDING I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF THAT I HAVE NOT MADE INVESTMENT DURING THE F. Y. 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1997-98 OR THEREAFTER IN THE HOTEL BUIL DING KNOWN AS HOTEL SUN RESORT. THE SAID PROPERTY HAS BE EN RECEIVED BY WAY OF WILL DATED 13.7.1995 WHICH WAS D ULY RECORDED IN THE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, DAMAN. 3.3 FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE AGAIN FEW NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND AS PER THE AO DESPITE AFFORDING NUMBER OF OPPOR TUNITIES, NO OTHER 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. ON ACCOUNT OF T HAT REASON THE AO HAD NOTED THAT HE WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO RESTORE THE STATUS- QUA OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS ALSO N OTED THAT THOUGH THE COPY OF THE WILL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY ITSELF IT WAS NOT A PROOF OF NO OTHER INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. AN APPREHENSION WAS RAISED BY THE AO THAT BY FURNISHING A COPY OF T HE WILL DO NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN REPAIR WO RK ON THE HOTEL. FINALLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 254 VIDE ORDER DATED 10-12-2007 AND THE INVESTMENT OF RS.34, 23,250/- RESPECTIVELY WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE APP ELLANTS. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ADDITION PRIMAR ILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SERIOUS IN SUBMITTING TH E INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE AO FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMEN T. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OPINED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF A CATEGORICA L DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE AO WAS RIGHT IN TAXING THE AMOUNT AS U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. BEING AGG RIEVED, NOW THE ASSESSEES ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANTS MR. M. K. PATEL, LEARNED AR AND FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE MR. SAMIR TEKRIWAL, LE ARNED DR APPEARED. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE IT IS VEHEME NTLY CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED NUMBER OF OPPORTU NITIES OF HEARING GRANTED BY THE AO. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO H AD TO COMPLY WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN CASE O F NON-COOPERATION, 8 THE DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER THE VDIS SCHEME TO BE TRE ATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANTS THE LEARNED AR, MR. M. K. PATEL HAS PLEADED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE WILL THEN THE ONUS WAS ON THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO INVE STIGATE WHETHER ANY INVESTMENT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MADE IN THE SAID P ROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT SOME REPAIR MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THEN, TH E AO COULD HAVE OBTAINED THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION OF RENOVATIO N OR REPAIR BY MAKING A SPOT ENQUIRY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE COULD H AVE REFERRED THE SAME TO VALUATION CELL. NEVERTHELESS, THE LEARNED A R HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS KEEN TO GIVE THE FULL DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BUT AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WA S NOT GRANTED. THE LEARNED AR HAS ALSO RAISED A TECHNICAL GROUND T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS.34,23,250/- IN EACH HAND FOR AY 1997-98 WAS W RONGLY MADE BECAUSE THE SAID DISCLOSURE WAS DATED 31-12-1997 AN D IN THAT DISCLOSURE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE PARTICULAR A SSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS ALLEGED TO BE MADE. 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE SIDES I.E. THE ASSESSEE AS A LSO THE REVENUE, HAVE NOT PROCEEDED IN THE RIGHT LOGICAL MANNER. IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US WE HAVE ASKE D THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL I.E. MR. MANSINGH D. CHAUHAN. THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL IS VERY I MPORTANT BECAUSE A 9 PROPERTY PASSES TO THE HEIRS/ SUCCESSORS ONLY AFTE R THE DEATH OF THE PERSON WHO HAS EXECUTED THE WILL. NATURALLY A WILL IS OPERATIVE ONLY AFTER THE DEATH OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL. ANOTHE R GLARING DEFECT IS NOTICED BY US THAT THE DATE OF MUTATION OF THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION IN THE NAME OF THESE TWO APPELLANTS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN VERIFIED. IT IS ALSO STRANGE TO NOTE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE VDIS DECLARATION IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THAT THE SAID DECLA RATION WAS FILED ON 31-12-1997, THEN WHY AT ALL THE AO HAD DECIDED TO A SSESS THE SAID AMOUNT FOR AY 1997-98. LIKEWISE, FROM THE SIDE OF T HE REVENUE, AS WELL, CERTAIN LAPSES HAVE ALSO BEEN NOTICED BY US. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT IS NOTICED THAT EVEN THE REASONS RECORDED HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN SO FAR TO THE ASSESSEES. T HE SHORTCOMINGS OF BOTH THE SIDES ARE, THEREFORE, LISTED AS BELOW: A. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEES THE SHORTCOMINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PART COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE AO 2. DATE OF DEATH OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL WAS NO T MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAMES OF THE APPELLANTS AND THE DATE OF MUTATION OF THE PROP ERTY. 4. WANT OF EXPLANATION THAT WHY A VDIS DISCLOSURE W AS MADE THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INHERITED BY THESE APPELLANTS. 10 B. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWI NG ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS LISTED BELOW: 1. THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. 2. IF THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION COULD BE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS REPAIR THE N WHY IT WAS NOT EXAMINED BY CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY ON THE SPOT AT THE SITE OF THE HOTEL. 3. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT Y EAR NOT MENTIONED IN THE VDIS, WHY THE SAME WAS ADDED IN AY 1997-98. 4. THAT UNDISPUTEDLY VDIS DISCLOSURE WAS DATED 31-1 2-1997 AND THEN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR ANY ACTIO N OUGHT TO BE AY 1998-99. BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE FOR AY 1997-98 AND THAT STAND OF THE REVENUE HAS NO T BEEN CLARIFIED. 5. THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHY THE AO HAS NOT FOR WARDED THE SAID INFORMATION TO DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATIO N. 8. ALTHOUGH WE ARE AWARE THAT THE ISSUE HAD ONCE BE EN REMANDED BACK TO THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL, BUT KEEPING IN VIEW THE SHORTCOMINGS LISTED HEREINABOVE, WE DEEM IT JUSTIFIABLE AS WELL AS REASONABLE TO AGAIN RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO. WE AR E RESTORING THIS GROUND BACK TO THE AO SO THAT THE SHORTCOMINGS AS L ISTED SHOULD NOW BE REMOVED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF S OME OF THE VITAL INFORMATION SUCH AS THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE EXECUT OR OF THE WILL AND THE REASONS OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1997-98 BEING NOT 11 MADE CLEAR TO US, WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO ALONG WITH OTHER GROUNDS TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO AS PER LAW . AS IN THE PAST, WE REITERATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROMP TLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE AO AND IN CASE OF NON-APPE ARANCE OR NON- COOPERATION; THE AO IS AT LIBERTY TO MAKE THE ASSES SMENT AFRESH AS PER LAW. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE APPELLANTS BEING RESTORED BACK, THEREFORE, TO B E TREATED AS ALLOWED MERELY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT.30.11.2011 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD