M/s. Maruti Cotton Company, JUNAGADH V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 152/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2351 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR JANI YOGESH PANDEY
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Third party statement; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 148; 263; 63

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH SMC , RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E - COURT AT AHMEDABAD) [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO. 152 /RJT/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05 - 06 MARUTI COTTON COMPANY, ..... ... .. . ..... APP ELLANT C/O. M/S. JANI & CO., 11/12, CHAMBER BUILDING, JAISHREE ROAD, JUNAGADH. [PAN: A A LFM 3106 E ] VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, . .......... .... ...... ..................RESPONDENT RAJKOT . APPEARANCES BY: SAMIR JANI , F OR THE A PPELLANT YOGESH PANDEY , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 3 0 TH , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 28 TH , 2016 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 , PASSED BY THE BY T HE LD. COMMISSIONE R UNDER SECTION 263 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) /147 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT , 1961 ( THE ACT HEREUNDER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 0 05 - 06. 2. BRIEFLY STATE D , THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COTTON, PROCESSED COTTON AND COTTON SEEDS E T C. IT IS A CASE IN WHICH ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 19.12.2007 AND IT ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 8 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 24.01.2012. IN THE COUR SE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED, INTER ALI A , WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : - 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED T O FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS VIDE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2012: - IN CON NECTION WITH THE ABOVE REFERRED PENDING ASSESSMENT, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FURNISH T HE FOLLOWING FURTHER DETAILS: - (1) COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES MENTIONED BELOW FROM YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH CONTRA CONFIRMATION (2) COPY OF BILL MENTIONED AGAINST THEI R NAME (3) PROOF REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME I.E. FORM NO.7/12 & 8A (4) MODE OF PAYMENT MADE TO T HE AGRICULTURIST (5) IN CASE OF PAYMENT MADE IN CASH EXPLAIN TH E SAME KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. A CT A ND RULE 6DD(J) OF I .T. RULES. BILL NO. NAME OF AGRICULTURIST ADDRESS QUANTITY AMOUNT 67 GOVINDBHAI RAMBHAI AMODRA, TAL: UNA 6000 127500 68 KALUBHAI RAJABHAI AMODRA, TAL: UNA 4030 85637 125 HIRABHAI TABABHAI VELAN, TAL: KODINAR 1830 35685 126 BALUBHAI BHA N GWANBHAI BALANA , TAL: JAFARABAD 1870 36465 130 DHIRUBHAI LAKHMANBHAI SAMADHIYALA, TAL: UNA 8500 180625 212 MULUBHAI HAMIRBHAI NAKEJ, TAL: UNA 1640 31242 213 DHIRUBHAI BHIMABHAI NAKEJ, TAL: UNA 2625 50006 214 NATUBHAI MASHRIBHAI KAAJ, TAL: KODINAR 2000 37500 233 RASH MIBEN JASHUBHAI CHANCHVAD, TAL; UNA 6920 135286 247 DHARMENDRA MANHARLAL JOSHI KHAN, TAL: UNA 8350 162407 322 CHHAGANBHAI PREMJI RANPARIYA DRON, TAL: UNA 9000 175500 340 JADAVBHAI NANJIBHAI ITAVAYA, TAL: UNA 6060 129078 341 PREMJIBHAI VALLABHBHAI ITAV AYA, TAL: UNA 2960 62900 399 RAMJIBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI KANSARI, TAL: UNA 9460 201025 411 NARSHIBHAI KARSHANBHAI ZUDVADALI, TAL: UNA 7740 164475 412 DHIRUBHAI NANUBHAI ZUDVADALI, TAL: UNA 5060 107525 413 DHANJIBHAI ARJANBHAI ZUDVADALI, TAL: UNA 2840 59782 414 HARJIBHI KARSHANBHAI ZUDVADALI, TAL: UNA 7860 167025 1949662 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE S REPRESENTATIVE VI D E SUBMISSION DATED 21.12.2012 & 06.02.2013 SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR IN ALL THE CAS E S EXCEPT IN ONE CASE OF SHRI NATHUBHAI MASHRIBHAI, VILLAGE: KAAJ, TAL: UNA OF RS.37,500/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE COTTON IN CASH FROM THIS PERSON AND THE AMOUNT EXCEED THE LIMIT OF RS.20,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BLE TO PRODUCE THE ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 8 DOCUMENTARY PROOF IN FORM NO.7/1 2 EXTRACT OR 8A CERTIFICATE IN REGARD TO L A ND HOLDING AND CROPS CULTIVATED BY THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE COTTON. THEREFORE IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THIS PURCHASE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE, IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUP EE S OTHERWISE THAN BY A CROSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A C ROSSED BANK DRAFT, TWENTY PER CENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS M A DE PAYMENT OF RS.37,500/ - AS DISCUSSED ABOVE , THE 20% OF WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.7,500/ - . THE SAME IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WITH THE ABOVE REMARKS THE ASSESSEE S TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS : - TOTAL INCOME AS PER ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 29.12.2007 10000 ADD: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 7500 TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME 17500 [RUPEE SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY] ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. RECALCULATE THE TAX AND INTEREST CHARGEABLE . ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE MATTER, HOWEVER, DID NOT REST THERE. THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WAS SUBJECTED TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. WHILE DOING SO, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED THE PURCHASES IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ONLY. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES BY MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH MRD PURCHASES AS TO WHETHER THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES PRODUCED WERE RELEVANT OR NOT AT ALL UPON HEAR ING THE ASSESSEE ON THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, AND AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS : - ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 4 OF 8 7. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXCEPT CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 ON LEGAL GROUND, NO ATTEMPT HAS B EE N MADE TO SUBMIT RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WHICH MAY PROVE ITS URD PURCHASES AS GENUINE. FURTHERMORE, A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AS WELL S ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DUE DILIGENT VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED . IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE URD PURCHASES, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF GAM NAMUNA NO.7/12 IN SEVERAL CASES AND GAM NAMUNA NO.8A IN SOME OF THE CASES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THESE FORMS ARE ISSUED BY THE STAT E R EVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH SHOW THAT THE CONCERNED PERSONS HOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY. HOWEVER, THESE FORMS DO NOT GIVE INFORMATION ABO UT THE CROP GROWN BY THE CONCERNED PERSONS FROM THE PARTICULAR LAND DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. A BRIEF SNAP SHOT OF THE FINDINGS OF SHORTCOMING NOTICED IS TABULATED AS UNDER : - 1 GOVINDBHAI RAMBHAI DETAILS OF YEAR AND NATURE OF CROP SHOWN ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS FORM NO.7/12 & 8A SHOW S DETAILS FOR F.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 AND NOT FOR F.YS. 2004 - 05 (A.Y. 2005 - 06, THE RELEVANT YEAR ). ALSO THE CROP OF GROUNDNUT IS SHOWN IN F.Y. 2009 - 10 AND NO DETAILS ARE SHOWN FOR F.YS. 2008 - 09 & 2010 - 11. 2 DHIRUBHAI LAKHMANBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 WITH NO INFORMATION REGARDING CROP. 3 RASHMIBEN JASHUBHAI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NO FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DET AILS OF TOTAL AREA OF LAND AND LAND HOLDING. 4 DHARMENDRA MANHARLAL YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAI N ING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 GIVING DETAILS OF COTTON CROP. 5 CHHAGANBHAI PREMJI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 GIVING DETAILS OF COTTON CROP. 6 JADAVBHAI NANJIBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAI N ING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 200 8 - 09 TO 20 10 - 11 WITH NO INFORMATION REGARDING CROP . 7 PREM JIBHAI VALLABHBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 WITH NO INFORMATION REGARDING CROP. 8 NARSHIBHAI KARSHANBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2011 - 12 TO 2013 - 14 GIVIN G NO INFORMATION FOR CROP FOR F.YS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14. FOR F.Y. 2011 - 12 CROP IS SHOWN AS GROUNDNUT AND COTTON. 9 DHIRUBHAI NANUBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 5 OF 8 12 WITH NO INFORMATION REGAR DING CROP. 10 DHANJIBHAI ARJANBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 20 10 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 WITH NO INFORMATION REGARDING CROP. 11 HARJIBHI KARSHANBHAI YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 BUT SHOWN AS F.YS. 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 WITH NO INFORMATION REGARDING CROP. FOR F.YS. 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13. FOR F.Y. 2010 - 11, CROP IS SHOWN AS WHEAT. 12 HIRABHAI TABABHAI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DETAILS OF TO TAL AREA OF LAND AND LAND HOLDING. 13 DHIRUBHAI BHIKABHAI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DETAILS OF TOTAL AREA OF LAND AND LAND HOLDING. 14 MULUBHAI HAMIRBHI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NO T FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DETAILS OF TOTAL AREA OF LAND AND LAND HOLDING. 15 BALUBHAI BHANGWANBHAI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DETAILS OF TOTAL AREA OF LA ND AND LAND HOLDING. 16 RAMJIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI DETAILS OF YEAR OF CULTIVATION NOT FURNISHED (FORM NO.12) BUT FORM NO.7 & 8A FURNISHED GIVING DETAILS OF TOTAL AREA OF LAND AND LAND HOLDING. 8. A S DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING BY CONCERNED PERSONS AS WELL AS HE CROP KEN BY THEM DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FAILED IN MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE ABOVE ASPECTS. THUS, THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 04.03.2013 IS ERRONEOUS. SIMULTANEOUSLY FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE URD PURCHASES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, RESULTED IN ALLOWANCE OF PURCHA SES SHOWN FROM THE URD TRADERS. THUS, THE AFORESAID ORDER IS PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS WELL. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DURING THIS PROCEEDING IS ALSO SILENT OVER TH E AFORESAID ASPECT. BY POWER VESTED IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - R - 3, RAJKOT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 04. 03.2013 IS HERBY SET - A S IDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORT UNITY T O THE ASSESSEE SHALL VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CL A IM FOR URD PURCHASES BY MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION A ND VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING , THE CROP TAKEN, AND ACTUAL PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONCERNED URD TRADERS A ND T HEN PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 6 OF 8 4. T HE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. THE LD. CIT - III, RAJKOT ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SETTING ASIDE THE RE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF URD PURCHASES AND ON REPLY BY APPELLANT HOLDING URD PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.300 00/ - DISALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(3). THE S A ME IS PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING AND SETTING A S IDE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 . 2. THE LD. CIT - I I I, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONSIDERING THE INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATIONS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INSUF FICIENT AND FINALLY HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 5. I HAVE HEA R D THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON R E CORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF TH E APPL ICABLE LEG A L POSITION. 6. I FIND THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY RECEIVED THE INFORMATION, REGARDING CROP HOLDINGS BY THE SELLERS TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MA D E, WITHOUT NEED ED APPLICATION OF MIND. IN SEVERAL CASE S , THE LAND HOLDING VERIFICATION PERTAINED TO LATER YEARS A ND THERE WAS NOTHING TO EVEN INDICATE THAT THE SAME POSITION PREVAILED FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS AS WELL. THE DETAILS OF CROPS, AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WERE NOT ON RECORD IN SEVERAL CASES. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REMAINED PASSIVE ON THE FACTS WHICH CALLED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. AS TO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN SUCH CASES, I FIND GUIDANCE FROM HON BLE DELHI HIG H COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISE VS. ADDITIONAL CIT (99 ITR 375) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, IN T ER ALIA , OBSERVED AS FOLLOW S : - ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 7 OF 8 THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSED IN HIS RETURN. (14) THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. T HE STATEMENTS A MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ACCEPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE I T. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CAL L S FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FA C TS STATED IN THE RE TURN WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. THE MEANING TO BE GIVEN TO THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' IN SECTION 263 EMERGES OUT OF THIS CONTRACT. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUM BENT ON THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIR C U MSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MA DE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANY THING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED TH EREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER S INERTIA IN CONDUCTING NECESSARY INQUIRIES RENDERED THE RELATED REASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS THUS QUIT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING A SIDE THE SA ID ORDER, AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO DECIDE THE MATTER, ON MERITS, AFRESH. 8. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED R E VISION ORDER AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH D AY OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 6 PBN/* ITA NO . 152 / RJT/201 5 A.Y S . 20 05 - 06 PAGE 8 OF 8 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT