The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Jai Hind Green Energy Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3657/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6155 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 147; 148; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, ATLANTIS CORPORATE PARK, OPP. PRAHALAD NAGAR GARDEN, ANAND NAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD PAN: AACCJ4538F (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 01 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 02 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 2 , AHM EDABAD DATED 26 - 10 - 2015 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 3657 / A HD/20 15 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 2 2. THE R EVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: - 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.4,98,30,114/ - WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY B E RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1 ) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE AIS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 , 59 , 37 , 200/ - , CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 12 , 06 , 89 , 350/ - AND FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL /TECHNICAL SERVICES OF RS. 8 , 34 , 310/ - AGGREGATING TO RS. 12 , 61 , 17 , 380/ - , THEREFORE, THE NOTI CE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12 TH NOV, 2013. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21 ST JULY, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 81 , 92 , 061/ - . DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11 , 23 , 73 , 786/ - IN THE P & L A/C FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ALONG WITH NAME AND ADDRESS OF PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE SAID CONTRACT FR OM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSSSSE HAS MADE CONTRACT PAYMENT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 , 98 , 30 , 144/ - TO M/S JAIHIND INFRATECH PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COPY OF I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 3 ACCOUNT A ND THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE ABOVE PAYMENT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION 40(A)(IA), THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT PAID/PAYABLE TO CONTRACTOR OR SUB - CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK EXCEEDING RS. 30,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S. 40(A)(I A) OF T HE ACT AS THE RECIPIENT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAID INCOME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PAID INCOME TAX THEREON . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSSESSEE AND STATED THAT A S PER S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE CONTRACT PAYMENT OF RS.4,98,30,114/. CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 4 , 98 , 30 , 114/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.45,93,720/ - AND PROFESSIONAL FEE OF RS.8,34,310/ - FOR THE REASON THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE IN THE ITS DATA WITH THE AO. ON THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 19/01/2015 HAS SUB MITTED THAT THERE WAS CREDIT OF THE TDS IN ITS FORM NO. 26AS IN RESPECT OF THE PARTY NAMELY; M/S. JAINHIND PROJECTS LIMITED BUT THE SAME WAS THE MISTAKE MADE BY THE AFORESAID PARTY IN FILING THEIR QUARTERLY' TDS RETURNS WHEREIN THE PAN NUMBER OF THE APPELL ANT HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN AS RECIPIENT PARTY IN PLACE OF THE PAN OF THE CORRECT PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH INCOME BELONG. I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 4 5.4. FURTHER IT HAS NOT; CLAIMED THE CREDIT OF THE IDS ON AFORESAID TWO INCOMES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. IN FACT NO SUCH INCOME WAS ACCRUED OR RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S. JAIHIND PROJECT PVT. LIMITED AND THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE CLERICAL ERROR MADE ON THE PART OF M/S. JPPL THAT THEY ENTERED THE PAN NUMBER OF THE APPELLANT BY MISTAKE. FURTHER, CLAIMED THAT THEY APPROACHED TO THE M/S. JPPL TO VERIFY AND RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AFORESAID PARTY HAS FILED ITS REVISED IDS RETURN IN FORM NO. 26Q SHOWING THE CORRECT PAN'S OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN PLACE OF THE/APPELLANT'S PAN. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT ION OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE AO HAS TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE I. T. ACT. FURTHER, WHEN THIS WAS DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEN M/S. JPPL WAS APPROACHED AND FILED ITS REVISED IDS RETURN AFTER A GAP OF TWO YEAR CLAIMING THE ABOVE INTEREST RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLA NT DID NOT GIVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS ACCOUNTS OR INTIMATION FROM GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED AND M/S. INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI TO PROVE THAT THE AFORESAID INCOME WAS PERTAINING TO THEM. THUS, HE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AN D THE RESPECTIVE INCOMES WERE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 5.4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REITERATED ITS EARLIER VERSION AND MADE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. IT ALSO SUB MITTED A COPY OF RECEIPT OF THE REVISED TDS RETURN FILED BY M/S, JPPL AND ALSO THE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 26AS OF THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE AFORESAID TWO ENTRIES HAVE BEEN REVERSED DUE TO REVISED TDS RETURN FILED BY M/S. JPPL. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT M/S. JAIHIND PROJECT LIMITED HAD PAID CONSULTANCY FEES TO INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI OF RS.8,34,310/ - WHEREIN THE TDS WAS MADE OF RS.83,431/ - . IT ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF M7S. JPPL FROM WHICH IT WAS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE PROFESSIONAL FEES WAS PAID BY M/S. JPPL TO THE AFORESAID PARTY ON WHICH TDS WAS ALSO MADE. LIKEWISE, THE INTEREST BY M/S. JPPL OF RS.45,93,720/ - WERE PAID TO GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED ON WHICH TDS OF RS. 3,77,4207 - WAS MA DE ON THE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE MADE BY THE AFORESAID PARTY BEING SUB - CONTRACTOR OF M/S. JPPL. A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. FURTHER, M/S. JPPL HAS ALSO PAID RS.81,952/ - AS INTE REST AND PENALTY ON THE LATE PAYMENT OF AFORESAID TDS OF WHICH COPY OF CHALLANS WAS ALSO PRODUCED. WHEN THIS MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT TO M/S. JPPL, IT HAS FILED ITS REVISED TDS RETURN, HENCE NOW, THERE WAS NO MISMATCH IN THE TDS IN APPELLANT'S 26AS FORM. 5. 6. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT MERELY SOME MISTAKE HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S. JPPL, IN MENTIONING THE PAN OF THE APPELLANT ALTHOUGH SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED AND THE MISTAKE WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES AND RECTIFIED BY FILING OF THE REVISED TDS RETURN, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT WAS CALLED FOR AS IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY FAULT OF THE APPELLANT BUT DUE TO THE MISTAKE OF M/S. JPPL. 5.7. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - '2. AS FAR AS INT EREST RECEIPT OF RS.45,93,720/ - AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.8,34,310/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2012 - 13 AND AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN INTEREST I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 5 RECEIPT AND PROFESSIONAL FEES, THE REASONS WERE RECORDED AND TH E CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE ABOVE RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN THE FORM NO. 26AS THERE WERE CREDIT IN OUR ACCOUNT BEING TDS PAID TO JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. IN FILING THEIR QUARTERLY TDS RETURN WHEREIN THEY HAD WRONGLY SHOWN OUR PAN NO. IN THE RECIPIENT ENTRY. IN FACT NO SUCH INCOME WAS ACCRUED / RECEIVED BY US FROM JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. AND ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CLERICAL ERROR MADE ON THE PART OF JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. THAT THEY ENTERED QUR PAN NUMBER BY MISTAKE. WE ; HAD APPROACHED JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. THAT THE Y ENTERED OUR PAN NUMBER BY MISTAKE. WE HAD APPROACHED JAIHIND PROJECTS LIMITED VERIFY AND RECTIFY THE MATTER AND ACCORDING JAIHIND PROJECTS HAD FILED THEIR REVISED RETURN IN FORM 26Q SHOWING THE CORRECT NUMBER INSTEAD OF OUR PAN NUMBER BEING SHOWN THEREIN . THE ASSESSEE'S ABOVE CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE INFORMATION REGARDING RECEIPT OF INTEREST AND CONTRACT RECEIPT DURING THE F. Y. 2011 - 12 BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARIL Y FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2012 - 13 AND AS SUCH THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE RECEIPT OF INTEREST AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AND AS THE DEPARTMENT HAD DETECTED THE DISCREPANCY, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY AND THE SAME WAS REPORTED TO JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. AND ACCORDINGLY JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. AFTER SPAN OF TWO YEARS F ILED ITS REVISED TDS RETURN ON 10/12/2014 CLAIMING THE ABOVE INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.45,93,720/ - FROM GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LTD. AND OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY GIVEN THE SUMMARY OF REVISED TDS RETURN FILED BY M/S. JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. BUT HAS NO T GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS ACCOUNT OR INTIMATION FROM GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LTD. AND M/S. INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.45,93,720/ - AND RS.8,34,310/ - PERTAINED TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTEN TION THAT IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR BY MENTIONING THE PAN OF M/S. JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. AND M/S. JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD. REVISING THE TDS RETURN AFTER SPAN OF TWO YEARS IS NOT VIABLE AND HENCE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEDED AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.45,93,720/ - AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.8,34,310/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSING TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS.' 5.8. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS FOUND CORRECT AND THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY INTEREST INCOME AND PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM M/S. JPPL. THIS MISTAKE HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED BY M/S. JPPL ALSO VIDE ITS LETTER SUBMITTED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND SENT TO THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF REVISED TDS RETURN OF M/S. JPPL AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF AFORESAID RECIPIENT PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. JP PL. IN THE I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 6 REMAND REPORT, THE AO REITERATED ALL THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OVER THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN FORM OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE AFORESAID BOTH PARTIES NAMELY; GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED AND M/S, INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI, COPY OF REVISED IDS RETURN FILED BY M/S. JPPL MAKING CORRECTIONS AND REVERSAL OF ENTRIES IN THE 26AS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE CLARIFYING THE AFORESAID MISTAKE BY M/S. JPPL T O THE APPELLANT. THUS/IT IS PROVED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID EVIDENCES, AND THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE, THE SAME ARE CONSIDERED AND ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A OF I. T. RUL ES, SINCE THE AFORESAID INCOME WAS NOT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT BUT TO THE RESPECTIVE BOTH THE PARTIES. HENCE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION OF INTEREST AND PROFESSIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITI ON SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN ITS, BUT WHEN THIS MISTAKE WAS CORRECTED BY FILING THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HE DID NOT ACCEPT WITHOUT ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONS. HAD THE AO ANY DOUBT ON THESE EVIDENCES AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THEN SHE COULD HAVE MADE THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES FROM BOTH THE RECIPIENT PARTIES I.E. GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LTD. AND M/S. INDUSTRIAL X - RAY AND ALLIED RADI AND WITH M/S. JPPL TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. BUT IT HAS NOT BE EN DONE SO. THUS, FOR LACK OF ANY FURTHER INQUIRY OR ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS ON THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT UPON THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. 5.9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE ADDITION OF BOTH THE INCOME MADE BY THE AO IN T HE HANDS OF APPELLANT IS UNWARRANTED AS THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED, AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DELETED. EVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED THE CREDIT OF TDS ON BOTH THE AFORESAID INCOME WHICH ALSO PROVED THE BONAFIDE INTENTION OF APPELLANT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NOBODY HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WE OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL , THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CERTIFICATE FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE E FFECT THAT THE RECIPIENT COMPANY HAS PAID THE TAX ON THE RETURN INCOME AND ALSO SHOWN THE CONTACT RECEIPTS IN ITS PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT AND HAS PAID T HE CORRESPONDING T A X ON IT. THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE US NEITHER ANYBO DY I.T .A NO. 3657 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. JAI HIND GREEN ENERGY LTD. 7 FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED NOR FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION BEFORE US. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING IT A FRESH AFTER NECESSITY VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENT AND INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AS ABOVE AFTER AFFORDING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 01 - 0 2 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 01 /0 2 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,