The ITO., Ward-5(2), Ahmedabad V. Promact Plastic Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2148/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 214820514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K S PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEEN A, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO WARD 5(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS. PROMACT PLASTIC PVT. LTD. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACP8857D CO NO. 176/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO. 2148/AHD/200 9) A.Y. 2005-06 PROMACT PLASTIC PVT. LTD. PAN NO. AAACP8857D (CROSS OBJECTOR) VS. ITO WARD 5(2), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PROMACT PLASTIC PVT. LTD. PAN NO. AAACP8857D (APPELLANT) VS. ITO WARD 5(2), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI B.K.S. PANDYA SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI VIJAY RANJAN, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-11-2012 I.T.A. NO 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y.:-2005-06 ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 2 / ORDER PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THESE ARE THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE C ROSS OBJECTION AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING FROM THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DATED 02-04-2009. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) XI, AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF R S. 2,34,73,600/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRODUCTION/SALES SUPPRESSION. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) XI, AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON DELETING ADDITION OF R S. 40,49,995/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF G.P. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) XI, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF R S. 27,69,720/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(I)(II I). 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) XI, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 2,07,000/- 3. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS UNDE R:- 1 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) XI, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ENTERTAINING THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WITHOUT CALLING THE REMA ND REPORT ON THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THUS, FURTHER ERRED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 3 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR MAKING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR LAW G.P. RATE SHOWN IN THIS YEA R. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING A G.P. ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 53,60,000 AND HE SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT SUCH A B IG G.P. ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING ASSESSEES PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT AT ALL A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234 B. 5. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IN ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS TA KEN IN THE ASSESSED APPEAL (NO.2155/AND/2009) THE CIT(A) SHOUL D HAVE REALIZED THAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDI ATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR (VIZ. A.Y. 2006-07) BOOK RESULTS WE RE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF TH E BOOKS AND RECORDS EVEN WHEN GROSS LOSS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE. FOR THIS REASON ALSO BOOK RESULTS FOR THIS YEAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALSO R EALIZED THAT G.P. ADDITION HAD NOT BEEN MADE IN ANY OF THE PRECEDING YEARS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE MADE U/S, 143(3) FOR A.YS. 2 001-02 TO 2004-O5 ON VARIOUS DATES FROM 28.3.2003 TO 28.12.20 06 AND HENCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE BOTH R ESULTS ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EVEN IN REGARD TO THE PROCEED INGS FOR A.Y, 2005- 06 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERIN G AND ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 4 APPRECIATING SOME CRUCIAL PARTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S S UBMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOF [SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A)] AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 13.3.2009. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REALIZ ED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PAYING SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND WA S ALSO LIABLE TO LEVY OF SALES-TAX AND IT IS NOT DEPARTMENT'S CASE T HAT ANY OF THE AFORESAID TWO DEPARTMENTS HAD DETECTED ANY IRREGULA RITY IN ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORDS . 6. THE FACTUAL MATRIX FROM THE CASE IS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 20-122007. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2005 DECLARING TOTAL AT R S. 6,91,040/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT, BALANCE SHEET, AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CA AND 3CD. THE SA ID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AS PER INTIMATION DATED 02-11-2006 RAISI NG DEMAND OF RS. 1,39,616/- THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 28-07-2006 AND THE SAME WAS DULY SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18-08-2006. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 06-09-2007 AND TH E CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14-09-2007ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) F OR CALLING OF INFORMATION. ON APPOINTED DATE OF 14-09-2007 SRI N .N. PATEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ATTENDED AND SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 28-09-2007. ON 28-09-2007 N EITHER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED NOR SOUGHT ANY ADJOURNMENT, THEREAFTER, AS PER LETTER DATED 07-10- 2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ATTEND THE OFFICE F OR HEARING, THE CASE ON 15- 10-2007 AND ALSO TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS AND INF ORMATION CALLED FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 06-09-2007. THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY INFORMED BY THE LD. AO THAT NON-COMPLIANCE OF LETTER DATED 10-07-20 07 WOULD LEAD TO FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE IT AC T. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 05-11-2007 ALONG WITH THE LETTER WAS A DDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 5 ON 05-11-2007 FIXING THE CASE OF HEARING ON 10-11-2 007 AND ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS AND INFORMATIO N AS PER PREVIOUS NOTICE. IN THE SAID LETTER THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AS KED TO EXPLAIN THE DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN VARIOUS EXPENSES, SUCH AS DIESEL CONSUMPTION AND RAW MATERIAL, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES REGARDING DIFFERENCE OF SALES TAX LIABILITY AND DETAIL REGARD ING INTEREST RECOVERED AS LOAN AND INTEREST PAID ON BORROWINGS. THE ASSESSEE AGAI N HAD NOT ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE AO NOR SOUGHT ANY ADJOURNMENT HOWEVER ON 21-11- 2007 SRI N.N. PATEL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND ORALLY REQUESTED TO ADJOURN THE HEARING OF THE CASE. ON H IS REQUEST, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON 27-11-2007. AGAIN ON 27-11-2007 THE A SSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND, THEREFORE, THE LD. AO GAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY VIDE LETTER DATED 03-12-2007 AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 10-12-2007 AND REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR EARLIER. THIS LETTER WAS ALSO REMAINED NON-COMPLIED WITH. EVEN AFTER GIVING MORE THAN 8 OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES OF THE AO, THEREFORE, HE DECIDED THE CASE U /S 144 OF THE IT ACT. HE MADE FOLLOWING ADDITION AS UNDER:- (I). ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LAW GP ESTIMATED: 94,15,995/- (II). ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND SALE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE: : 2,34,73,600/- (III). DISALLOWED OF INTEREST U/S. 36(I)(III) : 27,69,720/- (IV). MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES : 2,07,000/- (V) DONATION : 15,000/- 7. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS HELD THAT THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 IS JUSTIFIED. BUT HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAV OUR OF THE APPELLANT ON ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 6 MERIT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REPLY BEFOR E THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 13-09-2009 AGAINST THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS BY W HICH HE HAS CLAIMED THAT HIS ACCOUNTANT VIPULBHAI HAD LEFT THE SERVICES OF THE COMPANY IN BETWEEN HENCE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WERE NOT IN A POSITIO N TO GET THE STATUS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS. THE DIRECTORS OF COMPANY THOUGHT THAT SUCH MATTER WAS HANDED OVER TO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HE WOULD CALL T HEM WHENEVER REQUIRED. HOWEVER SUCH REPRESENTATIVE HAD NEVER INFORMED THE MANAGEMENT AND THE APPELLANT WAS UNAWARE OF REGARDING SUCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED INTO NON ATTENDANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHI CH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HELD ORDER U/S 144 PASSED BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTIALLY OF GP ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT REPORT UNDER COMPANY LAW AS WELL AS IT LAW I.E. CHA NGE OF PRODUCTION MIX, ACCUMULATIONS OF STOCK AND LOW JOB WORK. 8. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF P RODUCTION AT RS. 2,34,73,600/- BY ACCEPTING THE VARIOUS CALCULATION OF THE APPELLANT. THERE WAS A MARGINAL REDUCTION IN THE G.P. DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE TH E CIT(A). THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES. THUS, HE DE LETED THE ADDITION FULLY. 9. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,69,720/-. HE ALSO ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT ALLEGE D INTEREST FREE ADVANCES REVENUE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN ADVANCED BY THE APPEL LANT TOO WHICH REPRESENTS BUSINESS DEPOSITS, TELEPHONE DEPOSIT, GAS DEPOSIT, BANK FDR, BALANCES OF DEBTORS WHICH WERE WRONGLY CLASSIFIED AS ADVANCES. BESIDE THIS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVE OF SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 7.42 CRORE AS A GAINST ADVANCE ADOPTED ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 7 BY THE AO AT RS. 2.31 CRORE. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 2,07,000/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WHICH WAS DEBITED IN TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT U/S 35D OF THE I.T. ACT AS AMORTIZATION OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF CIT(A) ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-04. 10. NOW, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. D.R. VE HEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACT EITHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OR PROVIDING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN WRITING. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT SRI N.N. PAT EL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, HE REQ UESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER FOR DENOVO TO AO. FROM THE SIDE OF APPELLAN T SRI. VIJAY RANJAN SR. A.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AO WAS PRESENT AT T HE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND HE DID NOT SEND ANY REJOINDER EVEN THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE CIT(A) ON 13 TH MARCH, 2009 WHICH WAS PASSED ON 4 TH APRIL, 2009. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADD ITION. FURTHER, HE ALSO ARGUED THAT G.P. ADDITION PARTIALLY CONFIRMED BY CI T(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED BY THE CA AND ACCEPTED BY THE OTHER DEPARTMENT LIKE EXCISE AND SALES TAX. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THE REASONS FOR MARGINAL DECLINE IN G.P. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE PARTIAL ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY BELO W GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND HEARD THE ARG UMENT FROM BOTH SIDES. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SRI. N.N. PATEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE AO TWICE AND SOUGHT THE ADJOURNMENT. TH EREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ACCOUNTANT SRI VIPU LBHAI LEFT THE SERVICES AND ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 8 THEREAFTER, NO COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DI RECTOR OF THE COMPANY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEES ATT ITUDE WITH THE AO WAS NON- COOPERATIVE. LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. HE HAS NOT SENT BACK THE REPLY ALONG WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TO T HE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND HIS COMMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO. AS PER RULE 46 (A) THE LD. CIT(A) CAN ACCEPT TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN FOLLOWING SITUATIONS:- (A). WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADM IT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. OR (B). WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE AO. OR (C). WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEV ANT TO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. OR (D). WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELL ANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 12. THE CIT(A) SHALL NOT ADMIT UNDER SUB-RULE 1 UNL ESS RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION AND ALSO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS OR TO CROSS EXAM INE THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AND IS PRODUCED ANY EVIDE NCE OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROD UCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) HAS CO-TERMINUS POWER TO DIRECT THE ASS ESSEE FOR PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTS OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUD ING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY. THE CIT(A) HAS CO-TERMINUS POWER BUT WHICH HAS ITA NOS. 2148/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06, 2155/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO. & C.O. NO. 176/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 9 NOT BEEN EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY WHATEVER REASON SUBM ITTED BEFORE HIM HAD ACCEPTED AS SUCH. THE ARGUMENT THAT OTHER DEPARTME NT LIKE EXCISE AND SALE TAX HAD ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULT IF HAS BEARING THE N HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED BY RELEVANT ORDER OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS. THE AO HAS POWER TO MAKE HIS OWN INVESTIGATION TO ARRIVE THE CORRECT INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE L D. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROVIDI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH BY GIVI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. THUS, APPEAL OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CO OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT T.R. MEEN A (JUDICAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD : DATED 23/11/2012 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#