M/s. Kalai Construction P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1311/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68711 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SRINIVASA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1308, 1309, 1310 AND 1311/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 200 8-09 M/S. KALAI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., 72, MUDALI THOTTAM, VEERAPPANCHATRAM, ERODE 638 004. [PAN : AACCK2359C] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. SRINIVASA RAO, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 17.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.09.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) II, CHENNAI ALL DATED 28.03.2012 RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THESE APPEAL S BELONG TO SAME ASSESSEE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND IS BEING DISPO SED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE SHALL TAKE UP I.T.A. NO. 1308/MDS /2012 FOR THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS LEAD CASE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS OF RESIDENTI AL UNITS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.K. DURAISAMY, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. KALAI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LIMITED ON 13.03.2008. IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI P.K. DURAISAMY , MD OF THE COMPANY, THE MATERIALS INVENTORISED AS SN/B&D/S-1, S-2, S-3, S-5, S- 8, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12 DATED 06.05.2008 WERE SEIZ ED. SINCE THESE BUNDLES CONTAINED CASH RECEIPTS/VOUCHERS FOR EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF CONSTRUCTIONS MATERIAL S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN SUBMITTED THAT THES E BUNDLES CONTAINED VOUCHERS OF VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASES OF WOOD, CLAY BRICKS, PAINT MATERIALS, PI PES AND FITTING MATERIALS AND ALSO PRODUCED LEDGER EXTRACTS OF THE ABOVE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O PRODUCE PARTIES LIKE M/S.SIVAPARVATHI AND COMPANY, COIMBATORE, SRI SHANMUGA TRADERS, COIMBATORE AND SRI RAM AGENCY ERODE. NONE OF THE PARTIES WERE BROUGHT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 3 OF SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 06.05.2008, SHRI. P. K. DURAISAMY, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY IN ANSWER TO Q.NO. 1 AND Q.NO.2 ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES PERTAINING TO M/S. SIVA PARVATHI AND COMPANY, COIMBATORE, SRI SHANMUGA TRADERS, COIMBATO RE AND SRI RAM AGENCY. ERODE ARE NOT TRUE IN NATURE. BASED ON THE STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE PURCHA SES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES AS BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED A SUM OF ` .10,40.990/-, BEING PURCHASES SHOWN AGAINST SRI RAM AGENCY, ERODE AND ` .16,07,470/- BEING PURCHASES SHOWN AGAINST M/S. SIV APARVATHI AND CO., ` .22,51,585/- BEING PURCHASES SHOWN AGAINST SHANMUGA TRADERS, COIMBATORE AND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNTS TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TH AT REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION, WHICH HAV E BEEN PROPERLY AUDITED AND CORRESPONDING AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTIO N 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ALSO FILED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 4 ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHE RS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE S OME OF THE PARTIES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PURCHASES ARE B OGUS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED THE ELABORATE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT PURCHA SES WERE MADE FROM ALL THESE SEVERAL PARTIES VIZ. M/S.SIVAPARVATH I AND COMPANY, COIMBATORE, SRI SARAVANA HOLLOW BLOCK, R. THIRUMURG AN & CO., ERODE, PONGALIAMMAN CHAMBERS, THIRUMURUGAN LORRY SE RVICE AND SRI RAM AGENCY ERODE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THESE ARE SMALL TIME BUSINESSMEN WITH NO FIRM FOOTING IN ANY PLACE AND THAT THEY ARE LIKELY TO SHIFT PLACES WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION AND C OULD HAVE ALSO STOPPED BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE BUSINESS WITH THOSE THREE PARTIES, THEY WE RE NOT INTERESTED IN KNOWING THE PRESENT WHEREABOUTS OF THE PARTIES. LAS TLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI. P.K. DURAISAMY H AD SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE DAY OF SEARCH, HE COULD NOT VEHEMEN TLY ARGUE THIS POINT DUE TO NATURAL FATIGUE AND THE CONFUSED STATE OF MI ND. 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE A RGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODU CED BELOW: 'THE SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI. P.K. DURAISAMY CONFES SING TO THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT TRUE IN NATU RE WAS RECORDED ON 06.05.2008. THE SEARCH FIRST TOOK PLACE ON 13.03.2008. SO THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT ABOUT CONFUS ED STATE OF MIND IS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT OF THESE PURCHASES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED MATERIALS FROM THESE PARTIES TILL FINANCI AL YEAR 2007- 08 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SO THE ASSESSEE'S I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 5 STORY OF NOT KNOWING THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE PARTIES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE SWOR N STATEMENT RECORDED ON 06.05.2008 OF SHRI. P.K. DURA ISAMY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S.KALAI CONSTRUCTIONS P LIMI TED, SHRI P.K. DURAISAMY IN ANSWER TO Q.NO.1 AND Q.NO.2 ADMIT TED THAT THE PURCHASES PERTAINING TO M/S.SIVAPARVATHI &, COMPANY, COIMBATORE, SHRI SHANMUGA TRADERS, COIMBATORE, SRI RAM AGENCY ERODE ARE NOT TRUE IN NATURE. SHRI. P.K. DUR AISAMY ALSO STATED IN ANSWER TO Q.NO.2 THAT THE DETAILS OF TOTA L UNEXPLAINED INFLATION AND EXPENDITURE WOULD BE SUBMITTED IN A W EEK TIME. HOWEVER, TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED A NY DETAILS. THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX ALSO CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE CONCERN NAMELY SIVA PARVATHY & CO., COIMBATORE DO N OT EXIST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE INSPECTOR REPORT IS KEPT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE P ARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTIES. HENCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES OF ` .59,57,905/- IS DISALLOWED AS BOGUS PURCHASE AND ADDED TO THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES .... 4.2 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI . P.K. DURAISAMY WHILE GIVING SWORN STATEMENT ON 06.05.2008 HAD ADMI TTED THAT THERE IS UNEXPLAINED INFLATION IN EXPENSES. ALSO, HE HAS AGR EED TO PAY TAX ON THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS PURCHASES FROM M/S. SIVAPARVATHI & COMPANY, COIMBATORE SRI SHANMUGA TRADERS, COIMBATORE AND SRI RAM AGENCY, ERODE FROM WHOM HE IS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE CONFIRMAT ION. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE CONFIRM ATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SAID PARTIES AS PROMISED BY H IM IN A WEEK'S TIME VIDE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 13.05.2008. FURTHER AS P ER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 17.12.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUC ED CONFIRMATION TILL THAT DATE. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THESE PARTIES. 4.3. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MANA GING DIRECTOR WAS IN A CONFUSED STATE OF MIND DURING THE SEARCH ON 13 .03.2008 AND THEREFORE ADMITTED INFLATION IN EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE ITS ONLY WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT ON 06.05.2008, T HE MANAGING DIRECTOR HAD MADE THE ADMISSION OF INFLATION OF EXP ENDITURE. THERE IS A SUFFICIENT TIME GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE DATE ON WHICH SWORN STATEMENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTO R. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 6 4.4. A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH EACH OF THE CONCERNS VIZ. M/S.SIVAPARVATHI AND COMPANY, COIMBATORE, SRI SARAVANA HOLLOW BLCOK, R. THIRUMURG AN & CO., ERODE, PONGALIAMMAN CHAMBERS, THIRUMURUGAN LORRY SE RVICE AND SRI RAM AGENCY ERODE SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RUN IN TO SEVERAL LAKHS. IT IS INEXPLICABLE THAT SUCH TRADERS WILL VANISH OV ERNIGHT AND WILL NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMATION, IN CASE THESE TRANSACTIONS AR E GENUINE. ALSO PERSONAL VISIT BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT C ONFIRMS THAT THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE. THEREFORE THESE EVID ENCES POINT OUT TO THE FACT THAT THE NAMES OF THESE CONCERNS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING BOGUS PURCHASE IN THESE CONSTRUCTION BUSINES SES. 4.5. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING HUGE AMOUNT AS PURCHASES FROM THESE THREE PARTIES FROM THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 TO 2008-09. IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT ANY CONCERN WHICH HAD LONG STANDING R ELATION WITH THE ASSESSEE, IF GENUINE, WOULD REFUSE TO GIVE CONFIRMA TION OF TRANSACTIONS. THESE CONCERNS, BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR BUSINES S ARE NOT STREET VENDORS WHO WILL MOVE OUT WITHOUT A TRACE. THIS ALS O GIVES CREDENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE CONCERNS ARE BOGUS ENTITIES . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PA N NO., COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN SUBMITTED BY THOSE PARTIES, THE C IRCLE OR WARD WHERE THEY ARE ASSESSED ETC. 4.6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AL SO, THE ASSESSEE GAVE SOME COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT INDICATING CHE QUE PAYMENTS TO SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. HOWEVER, I DIRECTED THE ASS ESSEE TO PROVE THAT THESE ARE 'CROSSED CHEQUE' PAYMENTS AND NOT BEARER CHEQUE PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CHEQUES WERE NOT BEARER CHEQUES ISSU ED IN THE NAME OF SUCH BOGUS CONCERNS. 4.7. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ANY CREDITOR FOR ANY LOAN OR PURCHASE OF GOODS, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE REALLY EXISTED SUCH CREDITORS OR PARTIES BY WAY OF PRODUCING CONFI RMATION OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED IN ITS DUTY TO ESTABLISH THE SAME WITH ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE LIKE PAN, IT RETURN PARTICULARS ETC., SALES TAX REGISTRATION NO. ETC. A S MENTIONED ABOVE. NONE OF .THE PARTIES HAD' APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOR PRODUCED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER. IT IS NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED CONFIRMATION DURING THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION, THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPEL LATE STAGE. THEREFORE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE NA ME OF PURCHASES FROM, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 7 THESE FIVE PARTIES TOTALING TO ` .76,94,575/- ARE NOT GENUINE AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ADDED BACK THESE AMOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATIO N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB O F THE ACT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION WORK. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED MATERIALS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE MATERIAL AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE M ADE. ALTERNATIVELY, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION AND WITHOUT PURCHASING IRON, CEMENT, S AND, WOOD, ETC. HE CANNOT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF QUANTIFYING THE DETAILS VIS-A-VIZ CONSTR UCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT HE WILL SUBMIT ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MAY BE EXAMINED AND DECIDED A FRESH. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T SO FAR AS ALTERNATIVE GROUND IS CONCERNED, THIS HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 8 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ALSO ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF SOME COMPANIES FROM WHOM THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT D OUBTED THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ONLY DOUBTED THE GENUINENE SS OF THE PURCHASES. SO, ANY COMPANY WHICH IS CARRYING THE CONSTRUCTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO BUY/ USE NECESSARY MATERIALS LIKE IRON, CEMENT, SAND, WO OD, ETC. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT COMPLETE TH E CONSTRUCTION WORK. WE FIND THAT THERE IS SOUND REASONING IN THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 1309, 1310 AND 1311/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2006- 07 TO 2008-09] 9. BOTH REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FA CTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECIDED HER EINABOVE AND SIMILAR DECISION MAY BE TAKEN FOR THESE APPEALS ALSO. WE HA VE EXAMINED THE AFORESAID FAIR SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH REPRESENTATIVES AND FIND THE SAME TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 -07, 2007-08 AND 2008- 09 AS WELL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311 1308 TO 1311/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 9 THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 17 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 17.09.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.