Creative Infocity Ltd., Gandhinagar V. The ACIT-Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

ITA 3462/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73098 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.3462/AHD/2010 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. INFOCITY COMPLEX NR.INDRODA CIRCLE AIRPORT ROAD GANDHINAGAR 382 009 / VS. THE ACIT GANDHINAGAR RANGE GANDHINAGAR ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCC 5834 C ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 15/11/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS.20,01,540 /- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND AS SUCH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY GU ILT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING PART ICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN MISCHIEF OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 2 - PENALTY BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AD TOTALLY UNCAL LED FOR, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. IN ANY CASE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IS BARRED B Y LIMITATION AND THUS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ILLEGAL. 3. IN ANY CASE, QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS ERRON EOUS AND EXCESSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN INITIATING AND LEVYING PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING MANDATORY SA TISFACTION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACT AT THE TIME OF FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION S UBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS EMERGED FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 24/03/2006 U/ S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) ON TOTAL INCOME AT RS.47,24,873/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED LO SS AT RS.7,21,490/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS QUASHED BY THE LD.CIT-GANDHINAGAR BY INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THIS ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE T HE ITAT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1982/AHD/20078 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/05/2009, THEREBY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE ORDER PASS ED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THE AO PROCEEDED TO LEVY PENALTY ON THE ADDIT IONS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ANNUAL RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.24,79,588/-, INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.18,99,172/- A ND INCOME FROM RENT OF RS.3,46,013/-. THUS, THE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.20,01,538/-. THE ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 3 - ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGAINST THI S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IN FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND MADE THE FOL LOWING SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME, INTEREST ON FDRS AND INCOME FROM RENT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT AS REGARDS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME OF RS.2 4,79,588/-, THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIM ATION. SUCH NOTIONAL RENT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY AO BY RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE WEALTH TAX RULES AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/03/2006 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PAR K IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT, THE GOVERNMENT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE APP ELLANT SET UP CREATIVE INFOCITY NEAR GANDHINAGAR. HE SUBMITTE D THAT FOR THAT PURPOSE THE APPELLANT EXECUTED THE MASTER LEASE AGR EEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT WHICH ALLOTS A LARGE PARCEL O F LAND 150 ACRES TO APPELLANT AT CONCESSIONAL RATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT STIPULATES THAT EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS GO T THE ENTIRE LAND AT AN ANNUAL RENT OF RS.11,716/-. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.76 TO 116 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT STIPULATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO CREATE RECREAT IONAL FACILITIES WITH THE INFOCITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT EXECUTES AGR EEMENT WITH INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. (ICRL) FOR CREATION OF NECES SARY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS STIPULATED IN THE MASTER LEASE AGREEM ENT. HE SUBMITTED ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 4 - THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT T HE APPELLANT SHALL GIVE A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND TO THE SAID ICRL AT CONCESSION AL/TOKEN RATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE W AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR ITS EMPLOYEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS VERY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS TO THE EFFECT THAT ON ALLOTMENT OF LAND AT CONCESSIONAL/TOKEN COST, THE APPELLANT SHALL BE CREATING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS PER THE MANDATE GIVEN TO IT PURSUANT TO ITS CONTRACTUAL ARR ANGEMENT WITH GUJARAT INFORMATICS LTD. IT IS NOT OPEN TO ANYBODY TO REWRI TE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE APP ELLANT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MOHIT MARKETING LTD. VS. DCIT (TAX APPEAL N O.157 OF 2000), WHEREIN IT IS HED THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO ANY THIRD PARTY INCLUDING THE REVENUE TO REWRITE THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWE EN THE PARTIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH PROVISION UNDER THE SCHEME O F THE ACT TO ADJUST THE SALE PRICE OF THE GOODS SOLD BY AN ASSESSEE. H E SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE LAND SHALL BE ALLOTTED AT A TOKEN/CONCESSIONAL COST. HE SUBMITTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE SAID CONT RACTUAL ARRANGEMENT THE APPELLANT HAS ALLOTTED THE SAID LAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT TAXABILITY OF INCOME OR ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED AFTER TAKING THE COMMERCIAL ANGLE OF THE ASSESSEE INTO CO NSIDERATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALSO EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT REVENUE CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT OVER THE COMMERCIAL WISDOM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE AS TO WHICH EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED AND WH ICH IS NOT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOBODY IS JUSTIFIED IN SITTI NG IN JUDGEMENT OVER THE ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 5 - COMMERCIAL WISDOM OF THE ASSESSEE NOR IS IT OPEN TO ANYBODY TO TEACH TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION(S) OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF SASOON J.DAVID CO.P.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT 18 ITR 261, SHREE VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RICE MILLS CONTRACTORS CO. VS. CIT (2 23 ITR 101) AND S.A. BUIDERS LTD. VS. CIT (288 ITR 1). HE SUBMITTE D THAT ONLY ACTUAL AND REAL INCOME, BASED ON THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF T HE SAME, HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UNLESS, IT IS ESTABLISHED BY REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INCOME OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION REGARDI NG NOTIONAL INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED OR EARNED MUST FAIL. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION(S) OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO.LTD. (91 ITR 8), CIT VS. A.RAMAN & CO. (67 ITR 11), CIT VS. SHIVAKAMI CO.(P) LTD. (159 ITR 71), SHOORJI VAL LABHDAS & CO. (46 ITR 144), CIT VS. CHAMANLAL MANGALDAS & CO. (39 ITR 8), CIT VS. BIRLA GWALIOR LTD. (89 ITR 266) AND GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO .LTD. VS. CIT (225 ITR 746). HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT R ECEIVED SUCH RENT INCOME FOR PROVIDING THE SAID LAND ON LEASE TO INFO CITY CLUB & RESORT PVT.LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS FACT A S TO ESTIMATION OF SUCH ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED EVEN BY AO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED A W THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 6 - THE CASE OF NAVJIVAN OIL MILLS VS.CIT (252 ITR 417) AND DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DILIP SH ROFF VS. JCIT (291 ITR 519). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS TH E ADDITION OF RS.18,99,172/- IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON FDRS BEING AND ADDITION OF RS.3,46,013/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM RENT, BOTH THE SAID INCOME WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ALSO IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 24/03/06 (PAGE NOS.39 TO 63 OF THE PAPER-BOOK). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLAN TS PROJECT WAS UNDER PROGRESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT S BUSINESS HAD NOT COMMENCED. HE THEREFORE TOOK A VIEW THAT THE SAID INTEREST ON FDRS AND INCOME FROM RENT MUST BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.3 9 TO 63 OF THE PAPER- BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT TREA TED THESE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES AND THE SAID TREATMENT IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF CIT VS. BOKARO STEELS LTD. (1999 - 236 ITR 315) AND INDIAN OIL VS. ITO ( 315 ITR 255)(DEL.). HE SUBMITTED THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, THI S CAN BE TREATED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE SAID INCOME WAS DULY R EFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO HIMSELF PICKED THE SAID FIGURES FROM P&L ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH INCOME WAS CONCEALED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY MERELY TAKING A VIEW THAT SUCH INCOME MUST BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME AS PER THE APPELLANT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 7 - PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. (322 ITR 158)(SC). HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE DESERVES TO BE DELET ED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AR RANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. WA S ON THE BASIS OF NO PROFIT AND NO LOSS. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARD S THE TERMS AND AGREEMENT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ENVISAGED THAT THE I NFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. HAD NOT CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS AS NO PRO FIT AND NO LOSS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD DEMONSTR ATING THAT THE SAID INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. HAS CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS AS PER NOT PROFIT AND NO LOSS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE SAID CLUB WAS SOLELY FOR THE APPELLANT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE AO IN RESP ECT OF THE PENALTY LEVIED ON AN ADDITION OF RS.24,79,588/- ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME FROM LAND GIVEN TO INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P ) LTD. ON THE BASIS THAT EXPLANATION HAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE AND THE LEASE IN QUESTION WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION, AS H AS BEEN THE UNCONTROVERTED AND UNCHALLENGED FINDING IS THE QUAN TUM ASPECTS, AND RIGHT FROM INCEPTION THE TRANSACTION DID NOT HAVE A NY JUSTIFIABLE MOTIVE. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ESTIMATE O F RENT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY TAKE IT OUT OF THE AMBIT OF LEVYING OF PENALTY AS HAVING CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE RENT OF RE.1 IS NOT REAL IN LIGHT O F HUMAN PROBABILITIES, THE ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 8 - AO WAS TO FIND A REASONABLE FAIR MARKET RENT TAXABL E, WHICH HE PROCEEDED TO DO AN WAS MAINTAINED IN APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER O BSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF PURE ESTIMATE BU T AN ESTIMATE AFTER CONCEALMENT WAS PROVED. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS SIM ILAR TO ESTIMATE OF PROFITS AFTER UNACCOUNTED SALES OR BOGUS PURCHASES HAVE BEEN PROVED. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS ASPECT IS THAT IT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. IN PURSUANCE OF THE TERM WHE RE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR I TS EMPLOYEES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA 5.3.1 AT PAGE NOS.92 & 93 OF THE PAPER-BOOK OF THE AGREEMENT , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO CREATE CERTAIN PROJECT FACI LITIES INCLUDING THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD. HAD EXPERTISE FOR CREATING S UCH FACILITIES, THEREFORE, AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE INFOCITY CLUB & RESORT (P) LTD.TO MAKE THE PROJECT FINANCIALLY VIABLE AT NO PROFIT AN D NO LOSS BASIS. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN THI S RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NAVJIVAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (252 ITR 417 ) AND DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DILIP SH ROFF VS. JCIT (291 ITR 519) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION ON ESTIMATE B ASIS. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATION ON RENTAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THESE CASE-LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY THE ITA NO.3462/AHD /2010 CREATIVE INFOCITY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 9 - ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE OF THE GROUNDS, I.E. PENALTY BEING BARRED BY LI MITATION. THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS APPEAL BE RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. HENCE, WE HEREBY SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO DECIDE THE APPEAL A FRESH COVERING ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED DURING THE FIRST APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/ 02 /2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD