Rajwani Textile Ind.(Pvt.)Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(1), Surat

ITA 2654/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5584 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' [BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ] ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2002-03) RAJWANI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.[FORMERLY SHIVANI SIZERS PVT. LTD.], 302, SHALIMAR MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT [PAN: AADCS 8235 R] V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1),SURAT [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REVENUE BY:- SHRI K M MAHESH, DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATE D 01-05-2008 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III, SURAT, RAI SES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED T O THE PRINCIPAL OF M/S SHIWANI SIZER WHILE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED AGAINST M/S RAJWANI TEXTILES. THUS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 148 OF I.T.ACT, 1961 IS WITHOUT VALID NOTICE AND THEREFORE NOT LEGA L. 2. NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE R OF M/S RAJWANI TEXTILES INDIA (P) LTD. WAS DULY COMPLIED. IMPUGNED NOTICE DID NOT REQUIRE PRINCIPAL OFFICER TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2002-03. 3. LR. A.O. COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF I.T. AC T, 1961 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY CENTRAL EXCISE DE PARTMENT. SOLE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT C ANNOT BE TERMED AS REASONS RECORDED BY I.T.O. AND THEREFORE NOTICE ISSUED ON SUCH DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE IS BAD AND ILLEGAL. EVE N THE REASONS RECORDED WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE APPELLANT, ON TH IS SCORE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID. 4. AIM AND AMBIT OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT IS QUITE DIF FERENT FROM THOSE UNDER I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TAK EN AS EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICING ISSUES AS PER GROUND NO.1 TO 4, LR. A.O. HAS GROSSLY ERRED TO DETERMINE INCOME OF RS.46,84,296/- ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT IMPORTED AND INDIGENOUS YARN WEIGH ING 27,108 KGMS. AND 60,072 KGMS WAS SOLD OUT OF BOOKS I.E. UN ACCOUNTED. WHEN PURCHASES OF YARN BEING NOT TREATED AS UNACCOU NTED INSTEAD OF TAKING NOTIONAL SALES VALUE AS INCOME RATHER THA N TAKING G.P. SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, ASSESS MENT MADE IS NOT JUST AND PROPER. 6. LR. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLO WING UNABSORBED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION TOWARDS ASSESSED INCOME, TH OUGH THE SAME WAS COMPUTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 7. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER W ITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF I.T. ACT. 8. LR. CIT(APPLS.) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF FOUR DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REQUESTED FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY OF A DAY OR TWO DUE TO PROCEDURAL FORMALITIES IN PAYMENT OF FEE FOR FILING THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THESE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR OBJECTED TO REQUEST F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE REASONS FOR DELAY. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY AIR 1972 SC 749, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIE NT CAUSE' FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDE IS IMPUTABLE TO THE PARTY. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY APPEAR TO BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE C ONDONED. THE LAW OF LIMITATION IS ENSHRINED IN THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM (IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THAT A PERIOD BE PUT TO LITIGATION). RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 3 THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, RATHER THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. IN SHA NKARRAO V. CHANDRASENKUNWAR REPORTED IN [1987] SUPP SCC 338, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT ADOPT AN INJUSTICE-ORIENTED APPROACH IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN O.P. KATHPALIA V. LAKHMIR SINGH REPORTED IN AIR 1984 SC 1744, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF THE R EFUSAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY RESULTS IN GRAVE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, IT WOULD BE A GROU ND TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REASO NS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, REFLECT SUFFICIENT CAUS E AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF FOUR DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED. 4 NOW ADVERTING TO VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT ASSESSMEN T IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIO D RELEVANT TO THE AY 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IMPORTED YARN WE IGHING 27,108 KGS., VALUED AT RS.16,80,696 AND INDIGENOUS YARN WEIGHING 60,072 KGS., VALUED AT RS.30,03,600/- OUTSIDE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF PREVENTIVE CHECK BY THE CENTRA L EXCISE OFFICIALS, SHRI MOHAMMED ALTAF ASHRAF RAJWANI, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEEE COMPANY RAJWANI TEXTILES INDUSTRIE S PVT. LTD., ADMITTED THE IRREGULARITIES POINTED OUT BY THE EXCI SE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE DATED 27-10-2006 U/S 148 OF T HE ACT WAS SERVED ON A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ON 30-10-2006 A LONG WITH COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE. IN RESPON SE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN. IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER NOT ICE DATED 5.12.2007, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE SILENT ON THE IRREGULARITIES POINT ED OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT NOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A NY RETURN OF INCOME , THE AO SHOWCAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY AN AMOUNT OF RS.46,84,296/- BE NOT TAXED BY WAY OF UNDISCLOSED I NCOME IN VIEW OF ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 4 IRREGULARITIES ADMITTED BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITI ES. SINCE ONLY A VAGUE REPLY HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO BY SHRI AS HRAF ISMAIL RAJWANI, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (EARL IER-KNOWN AS SHIVANI SIZERS PVT. LTD.), THE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 6,84,296/- TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED SALES OF IMPORTED AS WELL AS INDIGENOUS YARN AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE FI NDINGS OF THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- AS PER FORM NO.35 OF APPEAL THERE ARE FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT NONE OF THE GROUNDS IS IN RESPECT OF RELIEF CLAIMED AND IS ONLY CITING VARIOUS CASE LAWS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A PREVENTIVE C HECK WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AND IT WAS FO UND THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03, THE APPEL LANT HAD SOLD IMPORTED YARN WEIGHING 27,108 KGS. VALUED AT RS.16,80,696/- AND LOCAL YARN WEIGHING 60,072 KGS. VALUING RS.30,03,600/-OUT OF T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE IRREGULARITIES WERE ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY SHRI MOHMED RAJWANI. ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM EXCI SE DEPARTMENT, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE IT ACT TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE AO ISSUE D ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE APPEL LANT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT STILL NO RETURN U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS FILED. THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHED REPLY WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTO RY BY THE AO. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR AND COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. BEFORE ME, THE ID. AR DID NOT FILE ANY WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BUT RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF FACTS WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE A DDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS NOT CORRECT. IT WA S FURTHER STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD BEFORE PASSING ORDER U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT NO SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO, WHO SIMPLY RE LIED ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS NOT CO-OP ERATING WITH THE APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH THE PREVENTIVE ACTION TOOK PL ACE ON 30.05.2001. THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO NOT DETERMINED THE C OST OF THE SAID YARN AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT IN ORDER . I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BUT I DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THAT NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT AND PROPER RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WAS ALSO NOT FUR NISHED. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO WHAT WAS TH E COST OF THE MATERIAL ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 5 WHICH WAS SOLD OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SINCE O BVIOUSLY SUCH ENTRIES WOULD NOT FIND PLACE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THER EFORE, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AO A ND TREAT THE ENTIRE SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE AO SHALL VERI FY THE QUANTUM OF UNABSORBED DETERMINED LOSSES BROUGHT FORWARD FROM E ARLIER YEARS AND ALLOW RELIEF, IF ANY, ON THAT ACCOUNT. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS SIGNED BY A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY , IT IS CONTENDED IN RESPE CT OF GROUND NO.1 BEFORE US THAT A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS SERV ED ON M/S SHIWANI SIZERS PVT. LTD. SINCE THE SAID COMPANY IS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT ANY VALID NOTICE. IT IS MENTIONED THAT RETURN COULD NOT BE FILED SINCE THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF REQUIRED MATERIAL, WHICH HAD BEEN IMP OUNDED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SURAT -1. AS REGARDS GRO UND NOS. 2 & 3 , IT IS CONTENDED THAT SINCE BOOKS WERE NOT IN THEIR POSSESSION, THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME NOR COULD FILE THE RETUR N . FOR THE GROUND NOS. 4 & 5, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ENTIRE SALES COU LD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX,ONLY GP / NP CAN BE TAXED EVEN IN THE CASE O F UNRECORDED / UNACCOUNTED SALES. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE EITHER SET ASIDE FOR A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING OR ONLY GP / NP BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PAST RECORDS. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. 7 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S SHIVANI SIZERS PVT. LTD..AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FI NDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THEIR RETURN EVEN WHEN NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH REASONS FOR RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, WAS SERVED UPON A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY ON 30.10.2006 NOR THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE T ERMS OF THE ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 6 NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO, RESULTING IN BEST JUDGMEN T ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE EVER DISPUTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO REGARDING REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT OR VALIDITY OF NOTICES OR EVEN SERVICE OF THESE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS CLEARLY OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AL ONG WITH THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE. THIS FINDING HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND PR OPER RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER FORM NO.35 OF THE APPEAL THERE WERE FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT NONE OF THE GROUNDS WERE IN RESPECT OF RELIEF CLAIMED AND MERELY CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ,ESPECIALLY WHEN NO SUCH GROUNDS REL ATING TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED BY TH E AO OR EVEN FURNISHING OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ,WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH ISSUES NOW RAISED BEFORE US DO NOT EMERGE FRO M THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). IF THERE IS NO DECISION OF THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY AND NO GROUND IS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM ON A PARTICULA R PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT,IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVE D BY THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN NOT GRANTING SUCH RELIEF TO HIM. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN CIT VS. KARAMCHAND PREM CHAND PRIVATE LTD.,74 ITR 254(GUJ) HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENTITLED T O ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO AGITATE AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY AND THERE IS NO DECISION OF SUCH AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND SEEKS TO AGIT ATE IT. .SIMILARLY IN SMT. ARUDHANTI BALKRISHNA VS. ITO,103 ITR 763(GUJ), HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE DECISION OF THE OFFICER ON A POINT IN AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS NOT RA ISED OR DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN HUKAMCHAND & MANNALAL & CO.,126 ITR 251(MP) AND UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD. VS. CIT,141 ITR 326(BOM.).SINCE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US DO ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 7 NOT EMERGE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOR HAVE BEEN RA ISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS O F THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THESE GROUNDS . 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5 RELATING TO THE A DDITION UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), SINCE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF RETURN AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS TO WHE THER OR NOT PURCHASE OF IMPORTED AND INDIGENOUS YARN ,WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WAS DEBIT ED IN THE BOOKS, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER ALL OWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECI DING THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND , INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPROACH THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO. 5 IS DI SPOSED OF. 9. GROUND NOS. 6 & 7 WERE NOT PRESSED BEFORE US WHILE GROUND NO.8 ,BEING GENERAL IN NATURE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE ON THIS GROUND, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, BUT F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23-07-2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 23-07-2010 ITA NO.2654/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2002-03 RAJWANI TEXTI LE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. RAJWANI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 302, SHALI MAR MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT 2. THE ITO, WARD-4(1), SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-III, SURAT 5. THE DR, BENCH-C, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD