Smt Sonal D Sadarangani, Baroda V. The Dy Cit Cir-1, Baroda

ITA 3534/AHD/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57183 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2002
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN A LANKAMONY, AM) ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 A. Y.: 1996-97 SONAL D. SADARANGANI, 23/A, KUNJ SOCIETY, ALKAPURI, BARODA PA/GIR NO. AC (INV)CIR-S1-26S VS THE D. C. I. T., CEN CIR-(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 09-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10-02-2012 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II I, BARODA DATED 16 TH AUGUST, 2002, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. 2. EARLIER THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT IN LIMINIE VIDE ORDER DATED 09-08-2006. THE SAID ORDER WAS RECALLED BY AL LOWING MISC. APPLICATION NO.182/AHD/2010 DATED 06-01-2012. THIS APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON MERIT. ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,52,145./- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.5,95,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.5,95,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS UNEXPLAINED DEP OSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THIS GRIEVANCE ALSO INCLUDES THE GRIEVANC E RELATING TO THE AOS TREATMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,24,14 5/- AS BOGUS CLAIM. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CASH SUMMARY FOR THI S YEAR, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A DEPOSI T OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.3,30,000/- (ACTUALLY RS.4,05,000 /-) AGAINST AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF RS.2,24,145/-. THE BANK ST ATEMENTS OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND CANARA BANK WERE FURNISHED IN WHI CH THE AO NOTICED THAT CASH OF RS.2,90,000/- ON TWO DATES WAS DEPOSITED WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND RS.3,05,000/- WAS DEPOSIT ED IN CANARA BANK IN CASH, CC AND TRANSFER ON SIX DATES. THE DET AILS ARE NOTED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THUS, TOTAL DEPOSITS WERE RS.5,95,000/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO CLARIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS AND TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EXPLANA TION REGARDING THE DEPOSITS THROUGH VARIOUS ENTRIES WHICH IS REPRO DUCED AT PAGE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INC OME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TWO ACCOUNTS WERE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E I.E. SUGARCANE AND COTTON WERE PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN SALE OF SUGARCA NE AND COTTON ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 3 AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE E ARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY BILL OF SALE OF SUGARCANE. THE AO CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITIO N. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SU BMITTED THAT CASH WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND A GRICULTURAL INCOME IS EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SUGARCANE AN D SALE OF COTTON AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE THE ASSESSEE EA RNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BILLS OF SALE OF COTTON WERE PRODUCED BUT N OT OF SUGARCANE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE AO ACCEPTED AGRICULTU RAL INCOME IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND WHILE DOING S O THE AO ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES @60% OF THE RECEIPTS. THEREF ORE, ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.1,52,145/-. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.2 OF THE APPE LLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.2 FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANTS COUNSEL ARE CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE CREDIT IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WHIC H ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE. THERE ARE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSIT AND SOME CREDIT BY TRANSFER. THE CASH DEPOSIT IS ON FOUR DAT ES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,05,000/-. THE SOURCES OF THESE CASH DEPOSIT S HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THROUGH CASH FLOW STATEMENT GIVEN ABOVE. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THERE IS A OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1,42,21 0/-. THIS AMOUNT IS SUPPORTED BY THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APP ELLANT FOR THE YEAR 31.3.95 WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ALONG WITH TH E RETURN OF THAT YEAR AND AS SUCH THIS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE RECEIPTS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS ON TWO COUNTS. ONE WITHD RAWAL FROM ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 4 BANK ACCOUNT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA IN THE NAME O F THE APPELLANT AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT IS SEEN T HAT THE WITHDRAWALS ARE IN VARIOUS INSTALLMENTS AND ALMOST EVERY MONTH. THE AMOUNTS ARE ALSO NOT VERY HIGH, MAXIMUM BEING RS.15,000, OTHERWISE RS.4000 TO RS.6000. AS AGAINST THAT, THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FROM THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN CONSTANTLY AT RS.2,500 PER MONTH. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHEN A SUM OF RS.1,42,210/- WAS A VAILABLE IN CASH WITH THE APPELLANT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEA R, WHY THERE WOULD BE WITHDRAWALS IN CASH EVERY MONTH FROM THE B ANK ACCOUNT IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. I, THEREFORE, HOL D THAT WITHDRAWAL FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA IN A SMALL AM OUNT ARE FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AND CANNOT B E TAKEN NOTE OF WHILE CONSIDERING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOR DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. I, THEREFORE, IGNORE THE RECEIPT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT BY WAY OF WITHDRAWALS IN CASH FROM T HE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT. SO FAR AS, THE RECEIPT BY WA Y OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,24,145/- IN THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SAT ISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE INCOME BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT IES AND THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY WAY OF BILLS & VOUCHERS IN THI S REGARD. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS TREATED AN INCOME OF RS.1,13,483/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN A. Y. 95-96, THE APPELLANT HAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AN D THE BILLS REGARDING THE SALE OF COTTON HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE EN TIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT B E IGNORED. CONSIDERING THE PAST PERIOD, I, ESTIMATE THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME FOR THIS YEAR AT RS.1,15,000/-. THIS INCOME TOGETHE R WITH THE OPENING CASH BALANCE TOTALS UPTO RS.2,57,210/- AND CONSIDERING THE CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH OF RS.4,355/-, RS.2,52, 855/- IS CONSIDERED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE BALANCE OF RS.1,52,14 5/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. IN THE SAME PARA THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE SOURCES OF OTHER DEPOSITS AND FOUND THAT SOURCES OF DEPOSITS I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY PART O F THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. ULTIMATELY, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF R S.5,95,000/- THE ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 5 LEARNED CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION SUBSTANTIALLY A ND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,145/-. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS ON EXCESSIVE SIDE AND FURTHER BENEFIT M AY BE GIVEN BY CONSIDERING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SEVERAL DETAILS BE FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME ACCEPTED SUBSTAN TIAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF EARNING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AL SO FOUND THAT EVIDENCES OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAVE NO T BEEN FILED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN A SUM OF RS.1,13,483/-. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTL Y ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL AT RS.1,15,000/-. NO FURTHER EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT ADDITION IS ON EXCESSIVE SI DE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND IT A PPROPRIATE TO ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 6 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON GROUND NO.2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.2,96,515/. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.59,005/- AFTER CLAI MING INTEREST ON LOANS OF RS.51,216/- PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND IN TEREST OF RS.2,45,359/ PAID TO THE BANK. THUS, THE TOTAL INTE REST PAYMENT WAS OF RS.2,96,575/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE A BSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND EVIDENCE AND LACK OF EVIDENCE ON RE CORD TO PROVE THAT INTEREST PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE S. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.2,45,359/- TO SEVERAL BANKS AND ALSO PAID INTEREST OF RS.51,216/- TO SEVERAL PARTIES. DETAILS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN NOTED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN IN EARLIER YEARS FROM VARIO US BRANCHES OF CANARA BANK AND OTHER BANKS AND FROM VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES. DETAILS OF INTEREST PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO THE AO. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME BY WAY OF VARIOUS INVESTMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INC OME TOTALING TO RS.2,37,572/- WHICH INCLUDES DIVIDEND AND INTEREST ETC. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CERTAIN INVESTMENTS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND IF SUCH INVESTME NTS/ASSETS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR PAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BA NK, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE AMOUNTS OF LOAN TAKEN FROM THE B ANK WERE DEPOSITED WITH M/S. RISONA FIN AGRO LTD. UNDER THE AGREEMENT THAT THE SAID CONCERN WOULD INVEST THE AMOUNTS IN VARIOUS COMPANI ES AND THE ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 7 DIVIDEND, OTHER INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS W OULD BE SHARED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID CONCERN. IT WAS A DDED THAT HOWEVER, NO INCOME WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID CONCE RN. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN INVESTED IN PROFIT EARNING INVESTMENTS AND, THEREFO RE, AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HI S FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 4.2 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.2 I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANTS COUNSEL. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN LO ANS FROM VARIOUS BANKS WHICH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED WITH M/S. RI SONA FIN AGRO LTD. AND A PLEA HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT THIS WAS D ONE TO EARN THE INCOME IN THE MANNER DISCUSSED ABOVE. BUT THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD AND IT IS FURTHER GATHERED THAT M/S. RISONA FIN AGRO LTD. IS A GROUP CONCERN AND TH E SAID CONCERN HAS INVESTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE A PPELLANT AND VARIOUS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE SHARES ETC. OF THE GROUP CONCERNS ONLY. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLIS HED THAT THE LOAN WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE SAID CONCERN TO EARN AN Y PROFIT. FURTHER, NO CORRELATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEE N THE LOANS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND THE INVESTMENT MADE ON WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED AS MENTIONED ABOVE. HENCE, I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REFE RRED TO PB10 AND 11 TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND WH ICH WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON MAKING INVES TMENT IN SHARES OUT OF THE FUNDS AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR SIMILAR INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN DISAL LOWED BY THE AO. ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 8 THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AND RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRIDEV ENTERPRISES, 192 ITR 165. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAJENDR A PRASAD MOODY, 115 ITR 519, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST PAID ON INVESTMENTS IN SHARES DEDUCTIBLE EVEN IF NO DIVIDEN D RECEIVED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SAME PRINCIPLE WAS FOLLOWED B Y ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ATE ENTERPRISES LTD., 286 ITR (AT) (MUMBAI) 101. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO PB-10 AND 11 REFERRED TO ABOVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE L EARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE AO. THE AO PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT ON T HE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED, THEREFORE, INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT INTEREST WAS PAID TO THE BANKS AND OTHERS IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS TAKEN IN EARLIER YEAR AND NO D ISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, SUCH MATTER SH OULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST ON MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES IN A SUM OF RS.2,37,572/- AND DETAILS HAVE BEEN NOTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. SUCH ASPECTS HAV E ALSO NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT EARNING OF INTEREST HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME WHICH ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 9 WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FACTS NOTED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES WHICH ARE APPEA RING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND IF SUCH INVESTMENTS/ASSETS WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR PAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM BANK, NO I NTEREST INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED. ALL THESE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO ABOVE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRED RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO BECAUSE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE ISSUE. WE AC CORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. ITA NO.3534/AHD/2002 SONAL D. SADARANGANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIR- (1), BAR ODA 10 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD