Mr.S.G.Sarda (HUF) , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 1788/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7708 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VENKATESH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1788 TO 1790 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 SHRI S.G. SARDA (HUF), NO. 792/A, SARDA HOUSE, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 086. PAN: AAMHS1683R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (3), NOW 6 (2) (3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SUMAN LUNKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. VENKATESH, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 .0 7 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13. 0 7 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-6, BANGALORE OUT OF W HICH, ONE ORDER DATED 16.02.2018 IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE S ECOND ORDER ALSO DATED 16.02.2018 IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009 -10. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 1788/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2.1 IN ANY CASE, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT BEING ABSENT, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSE SSMENT BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER AS PASSED/CON FIRMED BEING ALSO BAD IN LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 8 2.2 IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT CO MPLIED WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE FOR REOPENING / REASSESSMENT AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE T O BE QUASHED. 3.1 IN ANY CASE THE ORDER PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, ESPECIALLY IN THE AB SENCE OF THE CROSS EXAMINATIONS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE AVERMENTS ARE SOU GHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORD ER, MAKE THE ORDER TOTALLY BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS INSTEAD OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS, H AS JUST CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PR OPERLY CONSIDERING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS O F THE APPELLANT AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. 3.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY TO BINDING DICTUM OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE BAD IN LAW AND ARE LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN ANY CASE, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE SHARES AND PROFIT THEREON AN D THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAME. 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAD IN ANY CASE NOT SOLD ANY SHAR ES, THE QUESTION OF TAXING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. 5.1 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN: A) TAXING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. B) NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT FOR THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SOLD ANY SHARES. C) HOLDING WITHOUT BASIS THAT THERE ARE TRANSACTION S IN SHARES WHICH ARE FRAUDULENT. D) ALLEGING WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT HA S OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND APPELLANT'S OWN MONEY COM E BACK IN THE GUISE OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE CONCLUSIONS / OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW I S TO BE DISREGARDED. 5.2 IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION MADE IS ERRONEOUS & EX CESSIVE. 5.3 THE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AND VARIOUS CONCL USIONS DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF ORDER ARE WI THOUT BASIS AND ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 8 EVIDENCE AND ARE MADE/DRAWN ON SURMISES, PROBABILIT IES AND CONJECTURES. SUCH OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS BY Q UASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LAW AND DESERVE TO B E REJECTED IN TOTO. 6. THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY NOT SOLD ANY SHARES D URING THE YEAR AND SAME NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADD UCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE QUASHED AND THE ASSESSMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF SHARES AS DONE BE DELETED. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 1789/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM MAD THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2.1 IN ANY CASE, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT BEING ABSENT, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSE SSMENT BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER AS PASSED/CON FIRMED BEING ALSO BAD IN LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2.2 IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT CO MPLIED WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE FOR REOPENING / REASSESSMENT AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE T O BE QUASHED. 3.1 IN ANY CASE THE ORDER PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, ESPECIALLY IN THE AB SENCE OF THE CROSS EXAMINATIONS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE AVERMENTS ARE SOU GHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORD ER, MAKE THE ORDER TOTALLY BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS INSTEAD OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS, H AS JUST CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PR OPERLY CONSIDERING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS O F THE APPELLANT AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. 3.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY TO BINDING DICTUM OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE BAD IN LAW AND ARE LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN ANY CASE, ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 15,73,860/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAME. THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS NO SUPPOR T IN LAW; IS ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 8 CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND THEREF ORE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 5.1 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN: A) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY EARNED LTCG OF R S. 8,25,297.05/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 15,73,860/-. B) TAXING SUCH AMOUNT BY APPLYING THE NORMAL SLAB R ATES AND BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT . C) NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES WHICH WERE DEMATED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE SHARES THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. D) HOLDING WITHOUT BASIS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN S HARES ARE FRAUDULENT. E) ALLEGING WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT HA S OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND APPELLANT'S OWN MONEY COM E BACK IN THE GUISE OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE CONCLUSIONS / OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW I S TO BE DISREGARDED. 5.2 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE, THE ADDI TION MADE IS ERRONEOUS AND EXCESSIVE. 5.3 THE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AND VARIOUS CONCL USIONS DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF ORDER ARE WI THOUT BASIS AND EVIDENCE AND ARE MADE/DRAWN ON SURMISES, PROBABILIT IES AND CONJECTURES. SUCH OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS BY Q UASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LAW AND DESERVE TO B E REJECTED IN TOTO. 6. THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY SOLD SHARES THROUGH D EMAT ACCOUNT AND HAD EARNED CAPITAL GAIN THEREON AND SAME NEEDS TO B E ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADD UCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE QUASHED OR ATLEAST THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED AS E XEMPT BE ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION ON S ALE OF SHARES AS DONE BE DELETED. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 1790/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 8 2.1 IN ANY CASE, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT BEING ABSENT, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSE SSMENT BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER AS PASSED/CON FIRMED BEING ALSO BAD IN LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2.2 IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT CO MPLIED WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE FOR REOPENING / REASSESSMENT AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER BECOMES BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE T O BE QUASHED. 3.1 IN ANY CASE THE ORDER PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, ESPECIALLY IN THE AB SENCE OF THE CROSS EXAMINATIONS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE AVERMENTS ARE SOU GHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORD ER, MAKE THE ORDER TOTALLY BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS INSTEAD OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS, H AS JUST CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PR OPERLY CONSIDERING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS O F THE APPELLANT AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. 3.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY TO BINDING DICTUM OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE BAD IN LAW AND ARE LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN ANY CASE, ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 15,73,860/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAME. THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS NO SUPPOR T IN LAW; IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND THEREF ORE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 5.1 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE EARED IN: A) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY EARNED LTCG OF R S. 7,45,638.911- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 15,73,860/- B) TAXING SUCH AMOUNT BY APPLYING THE NORMAL SLAB R ATES AND BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT . C) NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES WHICH WERE DEMATED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE SHARES THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. D) HOLDING WITHOUT BASIS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN S HARES ARE FRAUDULENT E) ALLEGING WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT HA S OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND APPELLANT'S OWN MONEY COM E BACK IN THE GUISE OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE CONCLUSIONS / OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW I S TO BE DISREGARDED. ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 8 5.2 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE, HE ADDIT ION MADE IS ERRONEOUS AND EXCESSIVE 5.3 THE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AND VARIOUS CONCL USIONS DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF ORDER ARE WI THOUT BASIS AND EVIDENCE AND ARE MADE/DRAWN ON SURMISES, PROBABILIT IES AND CONJECTURES. SUCH OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS BY Q UASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LAW AND DESERVE TO B E REJECTED IN TOTO. 6. THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY SOLD SHARES THROUGH D EMAT ACCOUNT AND HAD EARNED CAPITAL GAIN THEREON AND SAME NEEDS TO B E ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADD UCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE QUASHED OR ATLEAST THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED AS E XEMPT BE ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION ON S ALE OF SHARES AS DONE BE DELETED. 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMEN T OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI, DIRECTOR OF M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. SH E SUBMITTED A COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SITARAM SARDA (HUF) VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2721/BANG/2017 DATED 23.03.2018 AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F AO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS WERE GIVEN BY HON'BLE KARNAT AKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA DEVI KOTHARI IN WRIT PETITION NO. 39370/ 2014 DATED 02.02.2015. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE MA TTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH SAME DIRECTIONS. SHE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS, ONE MORE DIRECTION SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO TH E AO THAT EVEN IF SOME ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, THE SAME SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT FACTS BECAUSE AS PER THE PRESENT ASSESSMEN T ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF SOME AMOUNT OF RS. 15,73,860/- IN ALL THE THREE YEARS ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO SALE OF ANY SHARE IN THE FIRST YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IN THE REMAINING TWO YE ARS, SALE OF SHARES HAS TAKEN PLACE BUT THE AMOUNT OF SALE OF SHARE IS RS. 8,52,330.04 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RS. 7,83,391.69 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS NOTED BY CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 3 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN ALL THE THREE YEARS OF ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 8 RS. 15,73,860/- IS IN FACT THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE TWO SHARE SALES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 OF RS. 8,52,330.04 AND IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10 OF RS. 7,83,391.69. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBU NAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SITARAM SARDA (HUF) VS. ITO (SUPRA) AN D IN TURN FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA DEVI KOTHARI (SUPRA), I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT( A) IN ALL THE THREE YEARS AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO IN ALL TH E THREE YEARS FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS WERE GIVEN BY HON'BLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA DEVI KOTHARI (SUPRA). FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, I REPRODUCE PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SITARAM SARDA (HUF) VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE SAME ARE AS UNDER. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE NO DIFFER ENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LD. DR OF REVENUE. I REPRODUCE P ARAS 5 AND 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SOLANKI VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE SAME READS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIR ST OF ALL, I REPRODUCE PARA NO.8 OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S CHANDRA DEVI KOTHARI (SUPRA) AND THIS IS AS UNDER:- 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS A DVERTED TO ABOVE, AND AS THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY OF FAIR HEARING BY PROVIDING COPY OF TH E STATEMENT AND RELATED DETAILS REGARDING THE ALLEGED SHARE AMOUNT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES T O BE RE-CONSIDERED BY THE RESPONDENT BY PROVIDING FAIR A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONER AND BY FURNISHING THE DETAILS/COPY OF THE STATEMENT BAS ED ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED .' 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IT IS SEEN THAT MATTER WAS RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROV IDING COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI. AS PER THE FAC TS NOTED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE EARLIER PARAS OF JUDGMENT AND AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I FIND THAT THE FACTS AR E SIMILAR AND LD DR OF THE REVENUE ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFF ERENCE IN FACTS AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUD GMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD C IT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS WERE GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE KARNAT AKA HIGH ITA NOS. 1788 TO 1790/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 8 COURT IN THE CASE AS PER PARA NO.8 OF THE JUDGMENT REPRODUCED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR AT THIS STAGE REGARDING THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, I DE CIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO ON SIMILAR LINE AND RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS A S WERE GIVEN BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA DEVI KOTHARI (SUPRA) AS PER PARA 8 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS REPR ODUCED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FO R REGARDING MERIT OF THE ADDITION. 7. I DIRECT THE AO TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER L AW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DA TE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH JULY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.