Mr. Yogesh Kumar Jain, Delhi V. Dy. C.I.T., Circle- 4)1), Agra

ITA 36/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 3620314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 37/AGRA/2011 ASST. YEAR : 2006-07 MR. CHAKRESH KUMAR JAIN, VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 4( 1), D-53, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : AAVPJ 6427 F). ITA NO. 38/AGRA/2011 ASST. YEAR : 2006-07 MR. NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 4(1 ), D-53, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : ACQPJ 4543 H). ITA NO. 36/AGRA/2011 ASST. YEAR : 2006-07 MR. YOGESH KUMAR JAIN, VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 4(1 ), D-23, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : AAVPJ 6426 E). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEES : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.03.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 23.11 .2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 2 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEES DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF APPEALS. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSE D AS NOT PRESSED. IN THE REMAINING GROUND NOS. 3 & 4, THE ASSESSEES CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.65,00,000/-, RS.65,0 0,000/- AND RS.75,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(2 2)(E) OF THE IT ACT. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES MAINLY ARGUED APPEAL IN THE CAS E OF MR. CHAKRESH KUMAR JAIN AND STATED THAT THE FACTS ARE SAME IN THE REMA INING APPEALS. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF ALL THE APPEALS, THE FACTS N OTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, MR. CHAKRESH KUMAR JAIN, ARE CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT . LIMITED, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IT CAME TO LI GHT THAT THE COMPANY, M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS. 65,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADVANCE MADE BY THE COMPANY, M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED, WAS A TRADE ADVANCE AND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS NOT GIVEN OUT OF ACC UMULATED PROFITS SUBJECTED TO DIVIDEND. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 3 THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF IMPREST MONEY. THE IMPRES T MONEY WAS RECEIVED FOR EXPEDIENCY OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND TO CATER THE NEED OF BUSINESS, WHICH WAS ALSO RETURNED TO THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ONCE LOAN OR ADV ANCE IS GIVEN BY CLOSELY HELD COMPANY TO SHARE HOLDER, PROVISION OF SECTION 2(22) (E) WOULD APPLY AND WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BACK IS NO GROUND TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE LOAN W AS GIVEN FOR THE PERSONAL REQUIREMENT OF ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY AFTER AVAILING THE LOAN FACILITY FROM ICICI BANK. T HE AO, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE LOAN WAS AVAILED TO FROM THE COMPANY FOR PURCHASE O F PROPERTY. THE AO, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ARE ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENC Y. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE ATTRACTED IN PRI NCIPLE. HE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT SO ADVANCED WAS RECEIVED FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, WHICH ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 4 CONFERRED ADVANTAGE UPON THE COMPANY, THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 219 OF 2003 DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2011, IN WHICH HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PHRASE BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN APPEARING IN SUB-SECTION (E) MUST BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THOSE ADV ANCES OR LOANS WHICH A SHARE HOLDER ENJOYS FOR SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT O F BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SH ARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RI GHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER; BUT IF SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN TO SUCH SHARE HOLDER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMPANY RECEIVED FROM SUCH A SHARE HOLDER, IN SUCH CASE, SU CH ADVANCE OR LOAN CANNOT BE SAID TO A DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF THE ACT. THUS, FOR GRATUITOUS LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY A COM PANY TO THOSE CLASSES OF SHARE HOLDERS WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURV IEW OF SECTION 2(22) BUT NOT TO THE CASES WHERE THE LOAN OR ADVANC E IS GIVEN IN RETURN TO AN ADVANTAGE CONFERRED UPON THE COMPANY BY SUCH SHARE HOLDER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE PERMITTED HIS PROPERTY TO BE MORTGAGED TO THE BANK FOR ENABLING THE COMPANY TO T AKE THE BENEFIT OF LOAN AND IN SPITE OF REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE C OMPANY IS UNABLE TO RELEASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE MORTGAGE. IN SUCH A S ITUATION, FOR RETAINING THE BENEFIT OF LOAN AVAILED FROM VIJAYA B ANK IF DECISION IS TAKEN TO GIVEN ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE SUCH DECISIO N IS NOT TO GIVE GRATUITOUS ADVANCE TO ITS SHARE HOLDER BUT TO PROTE CT THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE COMPANY. THE VIEW WE PROPOSE TO TAKE FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE TWO DECISIONS, ONE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH CURT AND THE OTHE R OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY MR. KHAITAN AS INDICATED EARLIER. ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 5 WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERR ED IN LAW IN TREATING THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE AS SESSEE BY WAY OF COMPENSATION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR KEEPING HIS PROPER TY AS MORTGAGE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY TO REAP THE BENEFIT OF LOAN A S DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. WE, CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL BELOW BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO TREAT THE AD VANCE OF RS.20,75,000/- AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE APPEAL IS, THUS, ALLOWED BY ANSWERING THE POIN T NO. II IN AFFIRMATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HE HAS REFER RED TO THE SAME AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITE D WAS IN EXPEDIENCY OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND SINCE NOTHING WAS ASKED , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS PERMISSION TO PLACE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON REC ORD, I.E., (I) COPY OF LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 15.09.2004 FROM BANK OF BAROD A TO M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED AND (II) COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMIT TED FOR SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE WHICH WOULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. H E HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). ELECTRA (JAIPUR) (P) LTD. VS. INSPECTING ASSI STANT COMMISSIONER, 26 ITD 236, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 6 THE SOLE PURPOSE OF JUDICIARY AS WELL AS OF THE RE VENUE IS TO GET AT THE TRUTH. IF THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS GENUINE AND WAS DICTATED BY THE BUSINESS NEEDS, SUC H A PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE LED WAS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A VERY HIGH DEGRE E OF SUSPICION. THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO CONSIDER ANY EVIDEN CE PRODUCED TO TEST ITS AUTHENTICITY, RELEVANCE AND THEN TO ACT ON IT. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS GENUINE, RELIABLE, AND PROVES THE ASSESSEES CA SE, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE EVIDENCE LED TURNS OUT TO BE SPURIOUS, FABRI CATED OR OF IRRELEVANT NATURE, SUCH CONSEQUENCES AS ARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE LAW WILL ENSURE. IT IS, THEREFORE, INCORRECT TO SHUT OUT AN ASSESSEE IN THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM LEADING EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CASE. THE EARLIER INABILITY TO LEAD EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT B E HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS KNOWN TO THE COURT OR SUGGEST ED TO THE COURT OR THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUSPECT THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO SUCH SUGGESTION AND, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEES EVIDENCE WAS TO BE ADMITTED. THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AFRESH AND TO ISSUE ORDERS ACCORDINGLY. (II). RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES VS. ITO, 52 ITD 286, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : FROM A JUDICIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS, IT IS AMPLY SETTLED AND CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN ADMIT ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBU NAL) RULES IF THE RECEIPT OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS VITA L AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND ARRIVE AT A FINAL AND ULTIMATE DECISION. THE TRIBUN AL, THEREFORE, HAS ALSO POWER TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE OR IF THERE EXISTS SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. (III) IN MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA VS. JCIT, 101 TTJ (DE L) 1078 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FRESH EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED AIME D AT CLEARING AN OBSCURITY IS ADMISSIBLE. ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 7 (IV). IN V.K, BRAHMANKAR VS. JCIT, 90 TTJ(IND.) 821 , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE DOCUMENTS IN THE SHAPE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WILL ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL TO ARRIVE AT A JUST CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUES INVOLV ED IN THE APPEAL, THE SAME ADMITTED. (V). DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. MUKTA METAL WORKS, 336 ITR 555 (P&H), IN WHICH IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE REPORT OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES LABORATOR Y WAS A RELEVANT MATERIAL AND SO WAS THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE S EARCHED PERSON. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY FOR JUST DECISION OF THE MATTER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COMPRISING THE OPINION OF THE LABORATORY O F THE GOVERNMENT EXAMINER AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUTHOR OF TH E DIARY, THOUGH THE DOCUMENTS HAD A DIRECT BEARING ON THE ISSUE. 7. THERE IS NO RELEVANT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAC HHPAL SINGH VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 94 ITD(ASR) 79. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE IS SUE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS STAGE AND SUBMITTED THA T THE ADDITION EVIDENCE IS NOT RELEVANT AND THAT NOTHING IS PROVIDED IF THE BANK A SKED FOR THE COLLATERAL SECURITY AND THAT THE COLLATERAL SECURITY WAS GIVEN IN 2004 WHEREAS LOAN/ADVANCE HAVE BEEN ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 8 GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEES IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES SEEKS PERMISSION TO RELY UPON THE COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE B OARD OF DIRECTORS OF M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED, IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIS COMPANY TOOK NOTE OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE ASS ESSEES FOR STANDING AS GUARANTORS IN SECURITIES OF THE LOAN FACILITIES SAN CTIONED BY THE BANK OF BARODA TO THE COMPANY. THE BOARD ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT T HAT THE PROPERTIES OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS COLLATERAL SECURITY BY THE BANK, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMPANY. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THEREFORE, UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT KEE PING IN VIEW THE DEEP SENSE OF APPRECIATION FOR THE VALUABLE ASSISTANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY IN CONSIDERATION ABOVE, FINANCIAL ASSISTANC E IS PROVIDED AND IN ALTERNATE THE COMPANY WOULD HELP RELEASE THE PROPERTIES MORTG AGED BY THE ABOVE SAID BANK AND HELP DISCHARGE OF THE PERSONAL GUARANTEES OF TH E AFORESAID ASSESSEES SUBJECT TO THE PERMISSION OF THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGH T TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IS COPY OF LOAN SANCTION LETTER OF THE BANK T O M/S. PNC COLD STORAGE PVT. LIMITED. THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD CLEAR LY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEES WERE MORTGAGED TO THE BANK FOR BENEFIT ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 9 OF COMPANY WHO HAVE GRANTED LOANS TO ASSESSEES ENAB LING THE BANK TO TAKE LOAN SECURITIES AND THE ASSESSEE STOOD GUARANTOR FOR THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT TO BUSINESS IS AVAILED TO BY THE COMPANY ON SECURITIES BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE LOAN SO SANCTIONED BY THE BAN K. THE COMPANY, IN SUCH SITUATION, GRANTED SOME BENEFIT TO THEM TO PROTECT BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE SOME CASE TO ARGUE ON MERITS IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED. AS PER DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF DOCUMENTS NOW PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WOULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND SH ALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DOING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SINC E THE DOCUMENTS ARE RELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUST DECISION IN THE MATTER. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE AT LOSS IN ANY W AY BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE PRAYER OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN THAT T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD B E ADMITTED FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE FOR DOING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WE ACCORDINGLY, ADMIT ITA NO. 37, 38 & 36/AGRA/2011 10 THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR HEARING AND SINC E THESE HAVE BEEN FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. WE ACCORDING LY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE OF DEEMED D IVIDEND TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO ADMITTED BY US . IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASS ESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND MARCH, 2012 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY