Sh. Vikram Jain, Amritsar. V. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 335/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3620 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K MAGOW
• Keywords: Loose papers; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 335/ASR/2016 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 VIKRAM JAIN S/O VINOD JAIN, PROP. AAR VEE TEXTILES, NOW AT 528, WHITE AVENUE, AMRITSAR [PAN: AALPJ 4238Q] VS. ITO, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. R. K. MAGOW (C .A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 31.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AMRITSAR (' CIT (A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 30.03.2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL C ONTESTING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAF TER) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2. ASSESSMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE STANDS FRAMED U/S . 144, I.E., AS A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIC ES U/S. 142(1) ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME, AS ALSO THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEING NOT CO RRECT AND INCOMPLETE, LEADING TO THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 145(3), SO THAT, EITHER W AY, SECTION 144 GETS ATTRACTED. THE ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 2 ASSESSEES INCOME WAS ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED AT 2.75% OF THE TURNOVER (RS.3174.80 LACS), I.E., BY WAY OF COMMISSION. THE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL. QUA EXPENSES, ALLOWED AT AN ADHOC, LUMP SUMP OF FIGURE OF RS.5 LACS BY THE AO, I.E., AGAINST AN AGGREGATE CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE AT RS.25 ,34,248/-, THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EXTENDED THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE TO RS.18, 46, 189, DETAILED AS PG. 8 OF HIS ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SERIOUSLY ASSAILS THE FRAMI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144, STATING THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS, AS REQUIRED, W ERE DULY FURNISHED, I.E., AFTER OBTAINING THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE AO O N 19.12.2011. BY OWN ADMISSION, SOME INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED ON 26.12.2 011, VIDE LETTER OF EVEN DATE (PB PGS. 54, 59). THE SAME STANDS PERUSED. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED, HOW, AT THE THRESHOLD, ONE WO NDERS, THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED AT THAT JUNCTURE COULD BE PROCESSED OR VERIFIED T HE TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT EXPIRING ON 30.12.2011. IN FACT, HERE AG AIN, INFORMATION QUA SOME ASPECTS, VIZ., BANK ACCOUNT AND STOCK TALLY, WAS AD MITTEDLY UNDER COMPILATION AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME (REFER PARAS 2 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSEESS LETTER DATED 26.12.2011), STATED OF BEING ABLE TO BE FILED WITHI N THE NEXT 2-3 DAYS, I.E., BY 28/29 TH DECEMBER, 2011. AN ASSESSMENT POSTULATES PROPER AP PLICATION OF MIND AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE SAME PREDIC ATES PROPER COMPREHENSION, VERIFICATION, OF ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, I.E. , IN SATISFACTION OF THE VARIOUS QUERIES OR DOUBTS THAT THE AO MAY ENTERTAIN ON AN E XAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, IN FACT EVEN GATHERING MATERIAL IN REBUTT AL OF THAT FURNISHED. ALL THIS REQUIRES TIME. THE CASH-BOOK, FURNISHED ON 28.12.20 11 (AT 4.30 P.M.), IS STATED BY THE AO TO BE INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT IN-AS-MUCH AS SOME ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE PAPERS OBTAINED BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES WERE, UP ON CONFRONTATION TO THE ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 3 ASSESSEE, FOUND NOT ENTERED IN THE CASH-BOOK (REFER PARAS 5.3 AND 6.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THERE ARE OTHER APPARENT DIFFERE NCES. THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK, EXPLAINED TO BE BY WAY OF CASH SALES, STANDS WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS.1469.79 LACS. THE CASH SALES ADMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE, HOWEVER, ARE AT RS.1380.69 LACS. EVEN ASSUMING, AS STATED, THE DEPO SIT OF THE ENTIRE CASH SALES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH THOUGH WOULD REQUIRE VERIFI CATION (W.R.T. DAY TO DAY ACCOUNT OF CASH, I.E., CASH BOOK) THERE IS ADMITTED LY AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF RS.89.10 LACS, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE ASCERTAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASH-BOOK OR OTHERWISE EXPLAINED, I.E., BESIDES THE ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVERED (SUPRA) FROM THE ASSESSEE. FOR ALL WE KNO W, IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE LOOSE ENTRIES ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF THE CASH TRANSACTIONS , AS INFERRED BY THE AO. WE SAY SO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS WITHOUT EXAMINATION THEREOF, BEING NOT A PART OF THE RECORD. THEN, AGAI N, IS THE ISSUE OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TRADE PARTIES, WHICH COULD N OT BE, FIRSTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEES (OWN) LEDGER ACCOUNTS (OF THE PARTIE S) AND, THEN, PAUCITY OF TIME; THE SAME, TO THE EXTENT FURNISHED, BEING ONLY ON 26.12. 2011. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED WERE ONLY FROM 15 (OUT OF 40) TRADE CREDIT ORS, FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THESE ARE THE SAME (15) PARTIES, WHOSE LEDGER ACCOUNTS STAND FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26/12/2011. IN ANY CASE, BALANCES (OR COPIES OF ACCOUNT) OF THE BALANCE 25 REMAIN TO BE CONFIRMED. RATHER, GIVEN THAT PURCH ASES WERE MADE ONLY FROM, AS STATED, 40 PARTIES, THE OUTSTANDING OF THE BALANCES OF 155 PARTIES (AS ON 31/3/2009) ITSELF RAISES DOUBTS, REQUIRING CONFIRMATION OF THE IR BALANCES/ACCOUNTS. WHAT, FURTHER, IS OF UTMOST CONCERN IS THE BALANCE OF THE FOUR PARTIES, STATED AT PARA 7.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TO WHOM AN AGGREGATE OF RS. 6 1.06 LACS OUTSTANDS AS ON 31/3/2009. THIS IS AS THESE ARE AMONG THE EIGHT (IN CLUDING THE ASSESSEE) FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN UNSCRUPULOUS ACTIVITIES, WITH A VIEW TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT AND, ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 4 THEREFORE, UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE CUSTOMS DEPAR TMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL, SHRI MAGOW, WOULD DURING HEARING CONFIRM THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THEM. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO THEM DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, REMAINED UNRESPONDED (REFER PARA 7.2 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER). THE LD. COUNSEL WOULD ADD THAT NO SALES TO ANY OF THE SEVEN CONCERN S (THE ASSESSEE BEING THE EIGHTH), MENTIONED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25/7 /2011 ISSUED BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R. THERE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THEM, AS ALLEGED BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, ON WHIC H BASIS THE ASSESSEES RETURN HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UN DER THE ACT (BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ON 20/8/2010). THERE IS, FURTH ER, NO FINDING (OR EVEN CONTENTION) TO THAT EFFECT, I.E., OF ANY SALES TO T HESE PARTIES, BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE CONTENTION HAS MERIT, THOUGH THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE REVENUE FROM VERIFYING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ASSESSEES A CCOUNTS, WHICH ADMITTEDLY PURPORT TO REFLECT THE TRUE STATE OF THE ASSESSEES AFFAIRS, AND OF ITS BUSINESS. TWO, EVEN ASSUMING NO SUCH SALES, THE PURCHASES FROM THE SE (FOUR) PARTIES WOULD NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED TO SEE IF THE SAME FINALLY TRANSLAT ED INTO ANY EXPORTS, EVEN DOWN THE LINE, AND THAT IF THESE WERE GENUINE; THE REVENUE ( IN THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT) SUSPECTING WHICH WOULD PRESUMABLY BE ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIALS, AS NOT GENUINE, AND BEING WITH A VIEW TO DEFRAUD THE GOVER NMENT THROUGH CLAIMS OF DUTY DRAWBACK, ETC. AGAIN, IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE PURCH ASES FROM THESE PARTIES ARE OUT OF IMPORTS MADE BY THEM, EITHER DIRECTLY OR DOWN TH E LINE. THE MATTER COULD ONLY BE FINALLY DETERMINED UPON BEING EXAMINED. THE RESU LT OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT ITSELF MAY BE RELEVANT. IN FACT, EVEN IGNORING THE ASPECT OF ANY FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, AS AFORE-STATED, THE QUEST ION OF THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS (IN REFLECT ING THE TRUE STATE OF HIS BUSINESS), HELD TO BE A COMMISSION BUSINESS, SURVIV ES. THE FINDING OF THE ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 5 COMMISSION BUSINESS, WE MAY THOUGH ADD, IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, AS ALSO IS THE RATE OF THE COMMISSION APPLIED BY THE AO, I.E., 2.75%, S INCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE POINT WE WISH TO MAKE IS TWO-FOLD. SURELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ALL THE TERMS OF THE NOTICES U/S. 142 (1) [VIZ. 30/5/2011, 29/6/2011, (NOT SPECIFIED, FIXING IN THE CASE FOR 29/8/2011), 28/11/2011, ETC.], SOME OF WHICH WERE ACCOMPANIED BY QUESTIONNAIRES, AS WELL AS VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, AS DATED 13/11/2011 AND 19/12/2011, BESIDES LETTER DATED 18/ 11/2011)]. SOME INFORMATION REMAINED TO BE COMPLIED WITH EVEN TILL THE FAG END OF THE PROCEEDINGS, I.E., UP TO 28/12/2011, EVEN AS THE SAME, WITHOUT DOUBT, SUGGES TS EARNESTNESS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN MEETING THE STATUTORY COMPLIANCES. FURNISHING OF INFORMATION AT THAT LATE STAGE, SO THAT IT COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION PROCESS, IS THOUGH OF NOT OF MUCH CONSEQUENCE FOR THE REVENUE. WHY, THE DRAFT ING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FINALIZED ON THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION, I.E., 30/ 12/2011, ITSELF WOULD CONSUME ABOUT 2 TO 3 DAYS. IN FACT, WE HAVE OURSELVES OBSERVED SO ME AREAS FOR EXAMINATION ON WHICH INFORMATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT/SUPPLIED. THE SAM E CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID TO BE PROPER COMPLIANCE, SO THAT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, S ECTION 144 (1)(B) WOULD GET ATTRACTED. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WOULD BE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE, IN VIEW OF THE FURNISHING OF INFORMA TION/DETAILS AND THE CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORTS BEING PUT IN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD THE SAME, EVEN IF BELATEDLY, TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE, AND INVOKE S. 145(3). THAT WOULD, TO OUR MIND, BESIDES BEING UNFAIR TO THE ASSESSEE, WOULD ALSO BE SO TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ITSELF; THE VERIFICATION BEING UNDERWAY AND INCOMPLETE. APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE A CONTINU ATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A), ENJOY AS IT DOES COTER MINOUS POWERS, OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, AND EITHE R CAUSED THE OUTSTANDING PROCESS/ES TO BE COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE AO OR AT HIS END, AND PASSED AN ORDER ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 6 ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT. THIS IS PARTICUL ARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN BY NO MEANS BE REGARDED AS RECALCITRANT, JUSTIF YING INVOCATION OF SECTION 144. IT IS ONLY UPON PROPER VERIFICATION THAT A FINDING AS TO THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS OR OTHERWIS E COULD BE PROPERLY AND JUSTLY ARRIVED AT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE INCHOATE STATE OF DETERMINATION, ADJUDICATED THEREON, CONFIRMING IT, FOR WHICH WE FIND LITTLE BASIS. BESIDES BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES, THE LAW POSTULATES THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY CORRECTS ALL THE ERRORS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. T HE APEX COURT IN KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) HELD THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE JURISDICTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY , APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS (TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHOSE DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREF ERRED) TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATTER AFRESH UNLESS FORBIDDEN FOR DOING SO BY THE STATUTE. AS AFORE- STATED, COULD THE FINDING OF THE ACCOUNTS BEING INC ORRECT AND INCOMPLETE BE MADE IN THE WAKE OF INCOMPLETE VERIFICATION, WHICH MUST THE REFORE BE TAKEN TO ITS CONCLUSION? HOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRADE BALANCES/TR ANSACTIONS REGARDED AS TRUE WITHOUT CONFIRMATION? AGAIN, THE CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT/S NEED TO BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED. THE CLAIM OF CASH SALES ITSELF NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES A VERY LARGE PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL SALES, WHICH IS SURPRISING AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT S ELLING TO THE FINAL CONSUMER. A CASH SALE IMPLIES THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE BUYER IS NOT KNOWN, SO THAT, BY IMPLICATION, THE GOODS STAND SOLD IN THE GREY MARKE T. THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME, CANNOT OF COURSE BE FAULTED WITH, THOUGH THE MATTER WOULD REQUIRE EXAMINATION, IF NOT AT LEAST FOR THE RATES/ PRICES AT WHICH THE GOODS ARE SOLD, I.E., VIS-A-VIS THAT OF GOODS SOLD ON CREDIT TO REG ULAR TRADE PARTIES, AS IN EITHER CASE THE GOODS WOULD BE SOLD AT COMPETITIVE RATES. THIS MAY ALSO ENABLE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN THE GP RATE, WHICH, THOUGH ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 7 ENQUIRED, AGAIN, WAS NOT LED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUS ION. THE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS IN THE FORM OF STOCK TALLY ARE YET TO BE PROVIDED, ONL Y WHEREUPON COULD THE REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN THE GROSS PROFIT BEING AT 0.92 % AS AGAINST 1.25% FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, BE ASCERTAINED. NO VOUC HERS WERE PRODUCED AT ANY STAGE, RESULTING IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF ALMOST THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE, WITH THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING SOME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. AND SO ON. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS, NOT PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE FINDINGS ON WHICH THE ASS ESSMENT RESTS. THE MATTER, THEREFORE, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WOULD NEED TO TRAVEL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. WE ARE NOT, WHEN WE SAY SO, IN ANY MANNER A FFORDING A SECOND INNINGS TO THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPLETE WITH I NSTANCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH REFERENCE BE MADE TO PAGES 1 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS RETURN, AND THE CLAIMS PRE FERRED THEREBY, IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES INSISTENCE, THEREFORE, ON THE REVENUE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS HE REQUIRED FOR MAKING COMPLIANCE, IS THUS WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT IT IS NOT THE REVENUE (INCOME-TAX) BUT THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT THAT HAD SEIZED THE DOCUMENT S. EQUALLY INVALID IS THE PLEA OF AN INABILITY TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS/INFORMATIO N IN VIEW OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVING BEEN SEIZED OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE CUS TOMS DEPARTMENT, WHICH CONTINUED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO EVEN AS LATE AS 14/12/2011 (REFER PARA 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). IT WAS IN CUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE MOVED THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT FOR THE SAID DOCUMENTS , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. THE AO PROVIDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19/12/2011, I.E., AFTER OBTAINING THE SAME FROM THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. WHI LE THE AO INDEED ACTED PROACTIVELY IN DOING SO, HE OUGHT TO HAVE, IN THE I NTEREST OF THE ASSESSMENT, OR SHOULD WE SAY PROPER ASSESSMENT, ACTED EARLIER IN R EQUISITIONING THE SAME FROM THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. THE IDEA OR THE PURPOSE OF THE FOREGOING IS NOT TO APPORTION ITA NO. 335/ASR/2016 (AY 2009-10) VIKRAM JAIN V. ITO 8 THE BLAME, WHICH NO DOUBT LIES SUBSTANTIALLY AT THE DOOR OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS IT IS HE WHO HAS TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCES IN DISCHAR GE OF HIS STATUTORY DUTIES, BUT, RATHER, TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE SAME IS BOTH FUTILE A S WELL AS FACILE INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSMENT, AS MADE, CANNOT BE APPROVED OF. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IS RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE AS SESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE HIS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS QUE RIES RAISED OR THAT MAYBE RAISED IN THE SAID SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. WE MAY, HOWEVER, NO T BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING ISSUED ANY FINDING OF FACT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 17, 20 18 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 17.08.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: VIKRAM JAIN S/O VINOD JAIN, PROP. AAR VEE TEXTILES, NOW AT 528, WHITE AVENUE, AMRITSAR (2) THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER