Shri Jayendra K. Doshi, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 394/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85828 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Retraction; Reason to believe; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 131; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . I.T.A. NOS. 390 TO 396/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1986-87 TO 1992-93 ) JAYENDRA K. DOSHI 12, LAVANYA SOCIETY, DHUMKETU MARG, PALDI, AHMEDABAD -380007 APPELLANT VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3, 1 ST FLOOR, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, OPP. POLYTECHNIC, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD-380015 RESPONDENT & W.T.A. NOS. 02 TO 08/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1985-86 TO 1991-92 ) JAYENDRA K. DOSHI 12, LAVANYA SOCIETY, DHUMKETU MARG, PALDI, AHMEDABAD - 380007 APPELLANT VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 2 WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-3, 1 ST FLOOR, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, OPP. POLYTECHNIC, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD-380015 RESPONDENT PAN: AAOPD 6556 A /BY APPELLANT : SHRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. !' /DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: ALL THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL WEAL TH TAX APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR GRO UND FOR A.YS. 1986-87 TO 92-93 ARISING OUT FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A). SO, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF T HIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN I.T.A. NO. 390/AHD/13 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 ASSESS EE HAS FILED APPEAL ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ONCE AGAIN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,83,37,910/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHILE IGNORING THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HON' BLE ITAT AND WRONGLY RELYING UPON THE CIT(A)'S ORDER DA TED WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 3 30/03/2000 AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT STOOD DECIDED AND SET-ASIDE FOR GRANTI NG CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THUS RENDERED THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF SETTI NG ASIDE THE CIT(A)'S ORDER AS FUTILE AND HAS UNNECESS ARILY THROWN THE APPELLANT ONCE AGAIN INTO ENDLESS LITIGA TION AFTER SEVERAL ROUNDS OF APPEALS BEFORE THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITIES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE PROPER COGNIZANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH RECORDED DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS. THAT SINCE SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAVING CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN THE SAID STATEMENT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT HE DOES N OT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE APPELLANT IN CASH AND THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN A/C. N O. 36 MAINTAINED BY HIM AND FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION ARE PERTAINING TO HIM ONLY AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAME, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON SUCH MATERIAL I S WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY REQUIRES TO BE DELETED/QUASHED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED BY THE FEMA AUTHORITIES FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID STATEMENTS IN A S MUCH AS TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN FEMA ALREADY STOOD RETRACTED IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS BASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM A THIRD PARTY AND NOT FROM THE APPELLAN T AND THAT SUCH THIRD PARTY HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTE D THE SAME TO BE PERTAINING TO HIM AND NOT THE APPELL ANT IN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION STATEMENT RECORDED PURSUAN T TO DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZE D WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 4 FROM A THIRD PARTY AND NOT FROM THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) BEIN G APPLICABLE TO SUCH THIRD PARTY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING CHARGIN G OF INTEREST U/S.139(8) AND 215/217 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y.1986-87 TO 1988-89 AND U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C FOR A.Y.1989-90 TO 1992-93 WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE ADMITTED FACT THAT SINCE THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE A.O. BEING BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM A THIRD PARTY AND NOT FROM THE APPELLANT, HE COULD NO T BE EXPECTED TO ANTICIPATE HIS INCOME AT THE TIME OF ADVANCE TAX PAYMENT AND HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEFAULT UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY NO INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED. 3. THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION VARIES IN DIFFERENT APPE ALS AS PER COLUMN 4 AS UNDER: AY ORIGINAL RETURNED INCOME RETURNED INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 INCOME ASSESSED AS PER ORDER U/S 144 RWS 254, NOW APPEALED AGAINST 1986 - 87 33,179 9,46,652 1,83,37,910 1987-88 21,550 NO RETURN FILED 24,85,790 1988 - 89 34,530 5,89,530 28,60,850 1 989 - 90 1,70,150 8,20,150 COMMISSION INCOME RS 6.50 LAC FROM M/S INTERNATIONAL AGENCY DISCLOSED 28,95,550 1990 - 91 1,79,446 (ASSESSED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DTD. 26/3/93 AT 2,20,450 8,20,450 WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 5 RS.7,55,450/ -) 19 91 - 92 1427390 (ASSESSED U/S 143(3) VID E ORDER DTD. 29/3/94 AT RS.15,51,190 / - ) NO 148 NOTICE ISSUED 15,51,190 1992 - 93 NO RETURN WAS FILED 15,59,530 62,59,530 3.1 A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE ON 08.08.19 90 WHICH WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 17.10.1990. AFTER SEARCH, ASSESSEE FILED A DISCLOSURE PETITION IN WHICH FOLLOWING UNAC COUNTED INCOME WAS DISCLOSED FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS: AY 1985-86 RS.38.10 LAC AY 1986-87 RS. 9.00 LAC AY 1988-89 RS. 5.55 LAC AY 1989-90 RS. 6.50 LAC AY 1990-91 RS. 5.30 LAC AY 1991-92 RS. 39.30 LAC RS.103.75 LAC 3.2 THE AFORESAID DISCLOSURE WAS IN RESPECT OF SHAR E HOLDING IN PATWA INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD., LYKA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. AND DHARNIDHAR LEASING & FINANCE LTD. TO THE E XTENT OF RS.95.75 LACS AND THE BALANCE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8 L AC WAS IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. 3.3 ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y.1985-86 TO A.Y.1990-91 AND 1992-93 WERE REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND WERE FINALIZED VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT [A.Y.1986- WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 6 87 TO 1990-91 AND 1992-93] AND U/S.143(3) OF THE AC T [A.Y.1991-92], WHEREIN VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE WHICH INCLUDED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BAS IS OF MATERIAL SEIZED FROM HIS POSSESSION I.E. SHRI NIRAN JAN SHAH. THE PARTICULARS OF ORDERS PASSED ARE AS UNDER: A . Y . DATE OF ORDER ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) 1985-86 25/03/1994 1,56,20,100/- 1986-87 25/03/1994 3,52,22,720/- 1987-88 25/03/1994 1,63,84,320/- 1988-89 25/03/1994 1,51,79,560/- 1989-90 25/03/1994 1,14,01,420/- 1990-91 13/03/1997 8,20,450/- 1991-92 29/03/1994 15,51,190/- [U/S.L43(3)] 1992-93 28/03/1995 70,59,530/- 3.4 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHO VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.03.1995, PARTLY C ONFIRMED, PARTLY DELETED AND PARTLY SET-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS . MEANWHILE, ISSUES OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN SHAR E HOLDING IN VARIOUS COMPANIES WAS CARRIED TO THE ITAT, WHERE IN ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/11/2004 FOR A.YS. 1 985-86 TO 1989-90. BASICALLY, IN SAID ORDER AMOUNTS ACCEPTED IN DISCLOSURE PETITION OF ASSESSEE WERE CONFIRMED AS A DDITIONS AND DISCLOSURE PERTAINING TO A.Y. 1990-91 OF RS.5.3 LAC S AND A.Y. 1991-92 OF RS.31.30 LACS (REMAINING 8 LACS WAS WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND) WAS DECIDED PERTAINING TO A.Y. 1985-86 AND WAS DIRECTED TO BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR AND NOT IN THE YE ARS IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCLOSED. MEANWHILE, SET-ASIDE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAID YEARS WERE, FINALIZED AS UNDER: WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 7 A . Y . DATE OF ORDER ASSESSED ORDERS PASSED U/S. INCOME (RS.) 1986-87 21/12/2000 1,83,37,910/- [U/S.143(3) R.W .S. 250] 1987-88 27/03/1998 24,85,790/- [U/S.143(3) R .W.S. 250] 1988-89 27/03/1998 28,60,850/- [U/S.143(3) R .W.S. 250] 1989-90 27/03/1998 28,95,550/- [U/S.143(3) R .W.S. 250] 1990-91 13/03/1997 8,20,450/- [U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147] 1991-92 29/03/1994 15,51,190/- [U/S.L43(3)] 1992-93 27/03/1998 62,59,530/- [U/S.143(3) R .W.S. 250] ONCE AGAIN AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDERS, APPEALS WE RE FILED BEFORE THE THEN CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD WHO VIDE APPEL LATE ORDER DATED 31/03/2000 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED YEARS I.E. A.YS.1986-87 TO 1992-93 PARTLY CONFIRMED AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS. 3.5 AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDERS OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y S. 1986-87 TO 1992-93, APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, AHM EDABAD, WHEREIN VIDE ITS COMBINED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30 /11/2006 SET-ASIDE THE APPEALS FOR A.YS. 1986-87 TO 1992-93 (INCOME TAX) AND A.YS.1985-86 TO 1991-92 (WEALTH TAX) AND A .YS. 1989-90, 1990-91 AND 1992-93 [AGAINST CIT(A)'S ORDE R DISMISSING APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT] TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT WITH THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 'AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SO FAR AS IT APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS AN A DMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN SH AH WHILE COMPLETING HIS ASSESSMENTS HAD RELIED UPON THE SEIZ ED MATERIAL SEIZED FROM PREMISES OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH AT THE TIME OF SEARCHING HIS CASE ON 30/04/1992 AND DURING THAT PROCESS HAD PROCURED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH WHICH HAVE THE EFFE CT ON WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 8 ASSESSEE'S ASSESSMENTS. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE RECORDS THAT AT THE INITIAL STAGE, APPELLANT'S ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, BUT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH AT BOMBAY A ND IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH AT BOMBAY DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, RA THER DIRECTED HIM BACK TO HIS ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS THAT CROSS EXAMINATION WILL BE ALLOWED B Y APPELLANT'S ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF. IT IS FURTHER AN ADMITTED FACT THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED BACK TO HIS OWN ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAM INE SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH ON THE GROUND THAT COPIES OF DOCUMENT S RELIED UPON IN THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SU PPLIED TO HIM. HAVING CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSEE'S RIGHT TO HAVE COPIES OF MATER IAL TO BE RELIED UPON AND TO CROSS EXAMINE THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE REVENUE RELIES UP ON CERTAIN MATERIAL PROCURED BY IT AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE COPIES OF THE SAME AND FURNISH REPLIES AS HE MAY DEEM FIT, BUT IN CASE , THE REVENUE RELIES ON CERTAIN DETAILS PREPARED BY THIRD PARTY OR STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ONLY ENTITLED TO GET THE COPIES OF THE SAME BUT IS ENTITLED TO CROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON WHO HAS PREPARED SUCH DET AILS OR HAD GIVEN STATEMENT ALSO, AS THE CASE MAYBE. SO AS THE PRESENT CASES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS AN ADM ITTED FACT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING. OFFICERS, (I.E. ASSESSEE'S ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH'S ASSESSING O FFICER) HAD RELIED ON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED BY S HRI NIRANJAN SHAH AND ON HIS STATEMENT, WHICH HAVE VITA L BEARING ON THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND THEREFORE, WE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI NI RANJAN SHAH, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE FIRST STAGE THOUGH ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, BUT MADE HIM RUN TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER AT BOMBAY WHICH WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SETT LED WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 9 PROVISIONS IN THIS RESPECT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE CA ME BACK, DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, HAS CAUSED A GROSS VIOL ATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSME NTS FOR ALL THESE SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS AND RESTORE THE IS SUE RELATING TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS AS WELL AS CONSEQUENT IAL LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER ANY OF THE SECTIONS, SUCH AS, 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR DE NOVO PURPOSE AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINING THE SAID SHRI NIRANJ AN SHAH, BOMBAY.' SUBSEQUENTLY, ORDERS WERE PASSED BY CONCERN ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HE ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME SHOULD INCLUDE T HE RETURNED INCOMES, ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSED ADMITT ED INCOMES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I.E. CASH FOUND AND DISCLOSED, C OMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 6.50 LACS DISCLOSED FOR A.Y. 1989-90, INCOME FROM M/S PATWA TRADERS CONFIRMED AS PER DIRECTION G IVEN IN APPEAL ORDERS, PERQUISITES ADDED AND CONFIRMED IN F IRST APPEALS AND LATER NOT CONTESTED AND THE ADDITIONS O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH OUT OF UN DISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ADDITION, ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVAN CES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS MAIN I SSUE AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. REGARDING THE MAIN ISSUE I .E. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHA H OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS ERRONEOUS SINCE SAME WAS BASE D ON MATERIAL AND FOUND ASSESSED FROM THIRD PARTY AND NO T FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS UN DER: WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 10 8.1.1 DURING THE COURSE OF AN INCOME-TAX SEARCH ON 30-5- 1992 AT THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH, A STOCK BROKER OF BOMBAY AND A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE APPELL ANT, A COMPUTER FLOPPY WAS SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED ACCOUNT NO. 36 IN THE NAME OF 'J.K.' THE LETTERS 'J.K.' REPRESENT THE INITIALS OF THE FIRST AND THE MIDDLE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT, TH E STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON 10TH JUL Y, 1992 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULA TION ACT. IN HIS AFORESAID STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT ADMI TTED THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE AFORESAID ACCOU NT REPRESENTED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN INDIAN RUPEES BY HI M OR BY HIS CONCERNS OR BY CERTAIN PERSONS ON HIS BEHALF TO SHRI NIRANJAN J.SHAH OR HIS CONCERNS OR CERTAIN PERSONS ACTING ON HIS (SHRI N.J.SHAH'S) BEHALF. SIMILARLY, THE APP ELLANT ADMITTED THAT THE DEBIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE AF ORESAID ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT IN INDIAN RUPEES PAI D BY SHRI NIRANJAN J, SHAH OR HIS CONCERNS TO HIM (THE A PPELLANT) OR HIS CONCERNS OR OTHER PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHA LF. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE FIGURES IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNTS WERE WRITTEN IN A CODE AND FOR FINDING OUT THE EXACT AMOUNT, THE DECIMAL SIGN WAS TO BE IGNORED. T HE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN A NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT BY THE FERA AUTHORITIES. HE HAD EXPLAINED A NUMBER OF ENTERIES IN GREAT DETAIL, INCLUDING DATES AND PLACES OF PHYSICAL TRANSACTION, AND THE P ERSON WHO WERE INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE SAME. HE HAD EXPLAINED THAT HIS ACCOUNT NO.36 WAS DEBITED BY SUM S OF RS. 1,20,000/- AND RS.14,100/- AGAINST US DOLLARS 8 000 AND POUND STERLING 660 ARRANGED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH IN LONDON FOR SHRI PARAGKUMAR PAL BHAVNAGARI, HIS (THE APPELLANT'S) EMPLOYEE. THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT WAS D EBITED BY A SUM OF RS.2,05,000/- AGAINST US DOLLARS 10000 PROVIDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH TO HIM AT SINGAPO RE IN MAY, 1989. HIS AFORESAID ACCOUNT WAS ALSO DEBITED BY A SUM OF RS.26,100/- AGAINST US DOLLARS 1500 PROVIDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH IN HONG KONG TO SHRI NIKHIL R . PARIKH IN JULY, 1988. HE FURTHER STATED THAN THE SUM OF RS.26,100/- HAD BEEN REIMBURSED TO HIM BY SHRI NIKH IL R. PARIKH. THE APPELLANT HAD FURTHER STATED THAT HIS AFORESAID WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 11 ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY A SUM OF RS.5,85,000/- AGAIN ST US DOLLARS 25000 PROVIDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH TO ONE SHRI KARTIK IN MARCH, 1991. HE CLARIFIED THAT THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS.5,85,000/- WAS REIMBURSED TO HIM BY SHRI KARTIK OF USA THROUGH A PERSON SENT BY SHRI KARTIK. HE ST ATED THAT HIS ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY A SUM OF RS.15,100/- AGA INST THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT PROVIDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH IN HONG KONG TO VARIOUS PERSONS FR OM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT. HE S TATED THAT HIS AFORESAID ACCOUNT WAS ALSO DEBITED BY A SU M, OF RS. 1,07,500/- AGAINST SINGAPORE DOLLARS 10000 PROVIDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J.SHAH TO ONE SHRI N.BABULAL SHAH IN SINGAPORE IN JUNE, 1990. THE APPELLANT HAD FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.20,000/- TO ONE SHRI NIRUBHAI ON 29-12-1990, RS. 1,15,000/- TO ONE NANDA, RS.45,000/- TO ONE SHRI PARIKH, RS. 10,000/- TO A P ERSON (NAME NOT GIVEN) ON 31-5-1991, RS.40,000/- TO ONE S HRI CHURCHILL ON 1-7-1991 AND RS.5,00,000/- TO ONE SHRI PRADIP SHAH ON 5-10-1991, UNDER INSTRUCTIONS FR OM SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH ON BEHALF OF ONE ANIL OF USA. THI S WAS SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ENTRIES FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACT IONS, PARA L(E) OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 5-10-1994 ISSUED BY ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, NEW DELHI TO THE APPELLANT , SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH AND OTHERS REFERS. 8.1.2. WITH REGARD TO THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN ACCO UNT NO.36, RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS AFFECTED THROUGH CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS, THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEME NT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH ON 7-2-1994 HAD STATED THAT THESE MUST HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RESPECTIVE BOOKS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHO MADE THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASSESSMENT O N 25-3- 1994 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y .1986-87, STATED THEREIN THAT VARIOUS DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIE S APPEARING IN ACCOUNT NO. 36 MADE BY MEANS OF CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS WERE ALSO APPEARING IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT IN AUGUST, 1990. EXAMPLES OF SUCH ENTRIES ARE GIVEN ON PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE AF ORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 12 8.1.3 THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON 7-2-1994 BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH, WITH REGARD TO TH E ENTRIES IN ACCOUNT NO.36 OF TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN BY MEAN OF CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS, STATED THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH WHAT SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH HAD STATED THEREON. HE F URTHER STATED THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH TRANSACTIO NS. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH, IN HIS STATE MENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT RECORDED BY HIS ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27-10-1993, WITH REGARD TO ACC OUNT NO.36 HAD STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS OF SHRI J.K. DOSHI, AS PER THE INDEX. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT REPRESENTED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K.. DOSHI OF AHMEDABAD IN INDIAN RUPEES. HE ALSO STATED THAT MOST OF THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THIS ACCOUNT WERE IN CODE AND TO READ THOSE; THE DECIMAL POINT WAS TO BE IGNORED. HO WEVER, AT CERTAIN PLACES, FIGURES WERE WRITTEN IN FULL ALSO. HE HAD GIVEN DETAILS OF SUCH FIGURES IN THE AFORESAID STATEMENT. HE HAD FURTHER STATED THAT SUCH DISCREPANCIES OCCURRED IN THIS ACCOUNT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS NEVER SETTLED AND CHECKED BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K. DOSHI. HE STA TED THAT THIS ACCOUNT ALSO REFLECTED THE TRANSACTIONS B ETWEEN CONCERNS OF HIS GROUP AND CONCERNS OF SHRI DOSHI'S GROUP. AS REGARDS ENTRIES OF TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THESE WERE REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES OF THE TWO GROUPS. HE STATED THAT THE ENTRIES OF CA SH TRANSACTIONS IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT WERE BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K.DOSHI HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SUMS ADVANCED IN CASH TO SHRI J.K. DOSHI AND HIS CO NCERNS, WAS OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH LYING WITH HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT FOR A. Y. 1986-87 DATED 25-3-1994, HAS GIVEN INSTAN CE OF SOME OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN CASH, APPEARING IN AC COUNT NO. 36, REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT SEIZED DURING A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN AUG UST, 1990. PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR DER REFER. 8.1.4 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PASSED THE EARLIER ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R EAD WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DATED 25-3-1994 F OR A. Y. WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 13 1986-87, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,89,61,000/- (SIM ILAR ADDITIONS OF VARYING AMOUNTS WERE MADE WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ASS. YEARS IN APPEAL, NOW) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, REPRESENTING THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO SHR I NIRANJAN J. SHAH, HIS CONCERNS AND OTHER PERSONS ON HIS (SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH'S) BEHALF, OTHER THAN BY MEANS OF CHEQUES, AND CREDITED IN ACCOUNT NO.36. WHILE MAKIN G THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HIM BEFORE THE FERA AUTHORITIES WAS A RELEVANT, SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, THOU GH NOT CONCLUSIVE. 8.1.5 AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE APPELLA NT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD. THE OB JECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPUTER FLOPPY ACCOUNT NO.36 HAVE BEE N SUMMED UP BY THE THEN CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD IN PARA 3.10 OF HIS ORDER FOR A, Y. 1985-86 DATED 30-3-1995 IN T HE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLA NT WERE AS FOLLOWS. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH AND , THEREFORE, ONLY HE COULD EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF VARI OUS ENTRIES MADE IN THIS ACCOUNT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN TH OUGH SOME OF THE ENTRIES MIGHT BE RELATED TO THE APPELLA NT, THERE WERE MANY OTHER ENTRIES WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO HI M AND THIS COULD BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE RECORDS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE IN RESPECT OF ONLY THREE OR FOUR FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THIS ACC OUNT, IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT, THE DATES WERE NOT MENTIONED AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT B E STATED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINED TO A PARTICULAR Y EAR. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAD FILED BEFORE MY THE TH EN CIT(A) AN ELABORATE VERSION OF THIS ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF A CHART AND IN THIS CHART; AGAINST EACH TRANSACTION DATES H AD BEEN MENTIONED. THE FIRST DATE MENTIONED WAS 31-5-1985. THE COUNSEL STATED THAT THIS DETAILED ACCOUNT WITH DATE S HAD BEEN FILED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH IN HIS INCOME-T AX PROCEEDINGS AT BOMBAY AND THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN VE RIFIED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AT BOMBAY ON THE BAS IS OF EVIDENCE AND MATERIALS. THE COUNSEL HAD FUR THER WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 14 CONTENDED THAT IF THESE DATES WERE TAKEN TO BE CORR ECT, THERE COULD BE NO CREDIT BALANCE ON ANY OF THE DATES AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT SEVERAL TRANS ACTIONS WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THIS ACCOUNT AS HAVING BEEN MADE IN CASH, WERE ACTUALLY BY MEANS OF CHEQUES AND, THE REFORE, THE, SAME COULD BE VERY EASILY VERIFIED WITH REGARD TO THE EXACT DATE AND THE PARTIES WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE SE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE VERY FIRST TRA NSACTION OF DEBIT OF RS.3,50,000/- IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT WAS BY CHEQUE NO.31585 ON 31-5-1985. IF THIS DATE WAS ESTABLISHED, THEN IT HAD TO BE ASSUMED THAT ALL TH E SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS IN THE ACCOUNT WERE EITHER ON 31- 5-1985 OR THEREAFTER. THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL HAD A LSO STATED THAT SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHALL HAD ACTUALLY OWN ED UP ALL THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT BY W AY OF DEBIT OR CREDIT, IN HIS INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS BY M EANS OF CHEQUES, IN THIS ACCOUNT, WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAD NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ANY CONCERN OF THE AP PELLANT'S GROUP, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS BY M EANS OF CHEQUES PERTAINED TO THIRD PARTIES AND THE APPELLAN T HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS EMPHA SISED THAT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL WHICH WA S AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF SHRI NIRANJA N J.SHAH WITH THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AT BOMBAY,-IT COULD BE EASILY ESTABLISHED THAT SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS DID NO T PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT MY PREDECESSOR HAD EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAD GIVEN H IS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.11 OF HIS AFORESAID ORDER. HE ST ATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLA NT, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE ACCOUNT NO.36 I N THE COMPUTER FLOPPY CONTAINED THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAYEN DRA K. DOSHI AS MAINTAINED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH. THERE FORE, HE HELD THAT THE ONUS WAS VERY HEAVY ON THE APPELLA NT TO EXPLAIN PROPERLY EACH AND EVERY ENTRY APPEARING IN THIS ACCOUNT HE OBSERVED THAT AT THE SAME TIME, THE OBJE CTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL COULD NOT BE IGNO RED. THE FACT THAT VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS IN ACCOUNT NO.36 HAD BEEN ASSIGNED SPECIFIC DATES IN THE CHART FILED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES IN BOMBAY, W AS A WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 15 VERY IMPORTANT FACT WHICH COULD CHANGE THE ENTIRE COMPLEXION OF THE SAID ISSUE. HE OBSERVED THAT IF T HE FIRST DATE I.E. 31-5-1985 IN RESPECT OF A TRANSACTION WHI CH IS CLAIMED TO BE BY CHEQUE, WAS ESTABLISHED AS CORRECT , THEN NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE A. Y. 1985-86 BECA USE AIL THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE AFTER THE END OF THE F.Y. 1984-85. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MAKE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF A TOTAL OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND I GNORING THE DEBIT ENTRIES. IN THE NORMAL COURSE, ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, UNLESS THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEBIT ENTRIES RELATED TO SUCH AMOUNTS WHICH WERE SPENT AWAY BY THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFO RE, THE SAME WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ADVANCING FURTHER AMOUN TS. MY PREDECESSOR OBSERVED THAT FOR DETERMINING THE PEAK CREDIT, ALL THE DATES MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT. FURTHER, THE CLAIM THAT SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE BY MEANS OF CHEQUES COULD BE ESTABLISHED AS NOT PERTAI NING TO THE APPELLANT, BUT TO VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES, HAD TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF WHATEVER EVIDENCE OR MAT ERIAL WHICH COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT OR WHICH W AS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF SHRI NIRANJA N J. SHAH WITH THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AT BOMBAY. THEREFOR E, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE ACCOUNT NO.36 IN THE COMPUTER FLOPPY WAS THE APPELLANT'S AC COUNT AND THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THEREIN BELONGED TO T HE APPELLANT, MY PREDECESSOR OBSERVED THAT UNLESS VARI OUS CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL WERE PROPERL Y ENQUIRED INTO AND DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO THE RELE VANT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO WO RK OUT THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION WHICH COULD BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. WITH TH E AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, MY PREDECESSOR RESTORED THI S ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DEC IDED DE NOVO. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE, IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIOUS CL AIMS MADE BY HIM BEFORE THE CIT(A), BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ADVISED TO MAKE ENQUI RIES FROM THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORISES OF BOMBAY ON THE REL EVANT POINTS. 8.1.6 IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 16 SUBSEQUENTLY IN 1998, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TO WORK OU T THE PEAK CREDIT IN ACCOUNT NO.36 DID NOT GIVE THE CORRE CT WORKING OF THE PEAK CREDIT HE STATED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD NOT WORKED OUT THE PEAK CREDIT BY CONSIDERING EACH TRANSACTION AS A SEPARATE TRANSACTION. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER, WHEN ANY AM OUNT OF CASH WAS BROUGHT IN AT A PARTICULAR TIME, THE SA ME WAS ENTERED FIRST. THE CASH BROUGHT IN OR TAKEN OUT SUB SEQUENTLY WAS ENTERED ONLY THEREAFTER. HE, THEREFORE, HELD TH AT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY A LATTER ENTRY COULD NOT BE CONSI DERED AS HAVING BEEN USED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS WHICH APPEARED PRIOR TO THE WITHDRAWAL. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE STATEMEN T PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT, THE FIRST THREE ENTRIES WERE CREDIT ENTRIES WHICH SHOWED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLA NT OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE / APPELLANT HAD, HOW EVER, SET OFF THE AFORESAID CREDIT ENTRIES AGAINST THE SU BSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL ON THE SAME DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN AN ACCOUNT, MAINTAINED ON THE COMP UTER, THE SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS DID NOT ALTER EVEN IF THESE WERE ON THE SAME DATE. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE FIRS T THREE & CREDIT ENTRIES REFLECTED THE APPELLANT'S INVESTMENT OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD CLAIMED SET OFF OF WITHDRAWALS THOSE DEBIT ENTR IES, AGAINST THE CREDIT ENTRIES; WHICH REPRESENTED THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM FOR PURCHASE OF FOREIGN EXC HANGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WORKED OUT THE PE AK CREDIT HIMSELF IN ACCOUNT NO.36 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN APPE NDED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS PEAK CREDIT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE, FROM A.YS. 1986-87 TO 1992-93, THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAI D WORKING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A. Y. 1985-86. HE STATE D THEREIN THAT WHILE WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT, EACH TRANSA CTION WAS CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE TRANSACTION AND RUNNIN G PEAK WAS WORKED OUT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF E ACH TRANSACTION. THE BENEFIT OF DEBIT ENTRIES FOR SET O FF AGAINST CREDIT ENTRIES WAS NOT GIVEN WHERE THE TIME GAP BET WEEN THE DEBIT ENTRIES AND THE SUBSEQUENT CREDIT ENTRIES WAS MORE THAN TWO MONTHS, BASED ON HIS BELIEF THAT THE DEBIT AMOUNT COULD NOT BE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT FOR MAKIN G A CREDIT AFTER A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS. SIMILARLY, THE BENEF IT OF DEBIT WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 17 ENTRIES REPRESENTING WITHDRAWAL OF SUMS WHICH WERE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (AS ADMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE FERA AUTHORITIES) WAS NOT GIVE N AS THE SAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN SPENT BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,63,45,500/- IN ASS YEAR 1986-87 (AND DIFFERENT AD DITIONS SIMILARLY FOR OTHER YEARS) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT REPRESENTING PEAK CREDIT OF THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH, HIS FAMI LY MEMBERS AND HIS CONCERNS REFLECTED IN ACCOUNT NO.36 . 8.1.7 THE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 2.2 OF HIS ORDER DATED 30/03/2000 FOR AY 1986-87. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALSO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THE CIT (A PPEALS) PASSING THIS ORDER HAD AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ; REACHED THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: (A) TRANSACTIONS IN THE COMPUTER FLOPPY CONTAINING ACCOUNT NO.36, IN THE NAME OF 'J.K.', WAS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF AN INCOME-TAX SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI NIRANJAN J.SHAH ON 30/5/1992, WERE WITH APPELLANT ONLY. (B) THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SHRI NIRA NJAN J.SHAH HAD ADMITTED THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN CASH, APPEARING IN ACCOUNT NO.36, IS NOT CORRECT. HE HAD ADMITTED ONLY THE DEBIT ENTRIES IN CASH AND HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE THEREOF. (C) THE THEN CIT, IN HIS ORDER DATED 30-3-1995, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR AY 1985-86, HAS STATED TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT SEVERAL TRANSACTION S IN ACCOUNT NO.36 WHICH WERE BY CHEQUES AND COULD BE ESTABLISHED AS PERTAINING NOT TO HIM (THE APPELLANT ) BUT TO VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES, HAD TO BE CONSIDERED ON T HE BASIS OF WHATEVER EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WHICH COULD BE PRODUCED BY HIM OR WHICH WAS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOM E- TAX RECORDS OF SHRI NIRANJAN J.SHAH WITH HIS ASSESS ING OFFICER AT BOMBAY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 18 GIVEN INSTANCE OF A SINGLE ENTRY IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS BY MEANS OF CHEQUES WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO HIM OR HIS CONCERNS. (D) HE HELD THAT THE ENTRIES IN ACCOUNT NO.36 WERE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS BY MEANS OF CHEQUE WHERE TH E DATES WERE VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO THE BANK AUTHORITIES. HE ALSO AGREED WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED ON COMPUTER, THE SEQUENCES OF TRANSACTIONS DO NOT ALTE R. THE FIRST ENTRY APPEARING IN ACCOUNT NO.36 WAS BY MEANS OF CHEQUE AND BORE THE DATE 31/5/1985. THE THIRTY-FIRST AND THIRTY-SECOND ENTRIES IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WERE ALSO BY MEANS OF CHEQUE AND AGAIN BORE THE SAME DATE I.E. 31-5-1985. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE FI RST THIRTY ENTRIES GIVEN IN ACCOUNT NO.36 IN RESPECT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 31-5- 1985. THE DATES GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OF ACCOUNT NO.36 PREPARED BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH AND SUBMITTED TO HIS ASSESSING OFFICER AT BOMBAY WERE ALSO ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. (E) THE CASH BROUGHT IN/TAKEN OUT SUBSEQUENTLY IS ENTERED THEREAFTER. THUS, THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY A L ATER ENTRY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS WHICH APPEARED PRIOR TO THE WITHDRAWAL. HE AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S OBSERVED THAT IN AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED ON COMPUTER, THE SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT ALTER. (F) THEREFORE, THE ADDITION, EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PEAK CREDIT, ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF CA SH TRANSACTIONS IN ACCOUNT NO.36, HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8.18 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENC H VIDE ITS COMBINED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30/11/2006 SET- ASIDE THE APPELLANTS APPEALS FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 1 992-93 WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 19 (INCOME TAX) AND A.Y. 1985-86 TO 1991-92 (WEALTH TA X) AND A.Y. 1989-90, 1990-91 AND 1992-93 [AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT] TO THE F ILE OF THE A.O. FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT WITH OBSERVATIONS AS REPRODUCED EARLIER IN PARA 4.3 OF THIS ORDER. 3.6 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 8.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS, THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY FER A AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS UNDER THE IT ACT, THE ORDERS OF MY PREDECESSORS IN THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE AND HAVE GIVEN THE BRIEF FA CTS ON EACH OF THESE IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS. THE FOLLO WING IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS AND FACTS ARE CULLED OUT AFT ER CONSIDERATION OF ALL MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON RECO RD, ON THE ISSUE CONCERNED: A) WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTS OF THE ACCOUNT MARKE D AS 'J.K', THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON 10TH JULY, 1992 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT. IN HIS AFORESAID STATEMENT THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN INDIAN RUPEES BY HIM OR BY HIS CONCERNS OR BY CERTAIN PERSONS ON HIS BEHALF TO SHR I NIRANJAN J.SHAH OR HIS CONCERNS OR CERTAIN PERSONS ACTING ON HIS (SHRI N.J.SHAHS) BEHALF. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT THE DEBIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT IN INDIAN RUPEES PAID BY SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH OR HIS CONCERNS TO HIM (THE APPELLANT) OR HIS CONCERNS OR OTHER PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHALF. B) THE APPELLANT FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE FIGURES IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNTS WERE WRITTEN IN A CODE AND FOR FINDING OUT THE EXACT AMOUNT THE DECIMAL SIGN WAS T O BE IGNORED. WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 20 C) NOT ONLY THIS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAI N A NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT BY THE FERA AUTHORITIES. HE HAD EXPLAINED A NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN GREAT DETAIL, INCLUDING DATES AND PLACES OF PHYSICAL TRANSACTION, AND THE PERSON WHO WERE INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE SAME. THESE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED EARLIER IN PARA. 8.1.1 OF THIS ORDER. THIS WAS SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE CLARIFICATION GIVE N IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ENTRIES FOR FOREIGN EXCHAN GE TRANSACTIONS, PARA L(E) OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 5 - 10-1994 ISSUED BY ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, NEW DELHI TO THE APPELLANT, SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH AND OTHERS REFERS. D) IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THE STATEMENT B EFORE THE FERA AUTHORITIES HAS NOT BEEN RETRACTED BUT INF ACT HAS BEEN RECONFIRMED EVEN AFTER 2 YEARS IN 1994 AS MENTIONED IN C) ABOVE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATEMENT SHOULD BE IGNORED AS BEING TAKEN UNDER COERCION. THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.T.M.S. MOHAMMED AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA (1992) 197 ITR 196 (SC) IS TOTAL LY MISPLACED. IN THAT CASE, EVEN RETRACTION BEFORE THE CUSTOM OR FERA AUTHORITIES WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS BEIN G AUTOMATIC PROOF OF COERCION. THE FACTS PROVE OTHERW ISE. E) WITH REGARD TO THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN ACCOUNT NO. 36, RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS AFFECTED THROUGH CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS, THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEME NT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI NIRANJAN J. SHAH ON 7-2-1994 HAD STATED THAT THESE MUST HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RESPECTIVE BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO MADE THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON 25-3-1994 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y.1986-87, STATED THEREIN THAT VARIOUS DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN ACCOU NT NO,36 MADE BY MEANS OF CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS WERE ALSO APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPEL LANT WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 21 IN AUGUST 1990. EXAMPLES OF SUCH ENTRIES ARE GIVEN ON PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. F) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 1986-87DATED 25-3-1994, HAS GIVEN INSTANCE OF SOME OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN CAS H, APPEARING IN ACCOUNT NO. 36, REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT SEIZED DURING A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN AUGUST, 1990 (REFER PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER). THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. G) SHRI NIRANJAN J.SHAH, IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SE CTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT RECORDED BY HIS ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27-10-1993, WITH REGARD TO ACCOUNT NO.36 HAD STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS OF SHRI J.K.DOSHI, AS PER THE INDEX. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT REPRESENTED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K.DOSHI OF AHMEDABAD IN INDIAN RUPEES. HE ALSO STATED THAT MOST OF THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THIS ACCOUNT WERE IN CODE AND TO READ THOSE; THE DECIMAL POINT WAS TO BE IGNORED. HOWEVER, AT CERTAIN PLACES , FIGURES WERE WRITTEN IN FULL ALSO. HE HAD GIVEN DET AILS OF SUCH FIGURES IN THE AFORESAID STATEMENT. HE HAD FUR THER STATED THAT SUCH DISCREPANCIES OCCURRED IN THIS ACCOUNT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS NEVER SETTLED AND CHECKED BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K.DOSHI. HE STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT ALSO REFLECTED THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CONCERNS OF HIS GROUP AND CONCERNS OF SHRI DOSHI'S GROUP. AS REGARDS ENTRIES OF TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THESE WERE REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES O F THE TWO GROUPS. HE STATED THAT THE ENTRIES OF CASH TRANSACTIONS IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT WERE BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI J.K.DOSHI HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SUMS ADVANCED IN CASH TO SHRI J.K. DOSHI AND HIS CONCERNS, WAS OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH LYING WITH HIM. H) THE SELECTIVE QUESTIONS OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ALSO DO NO T SHOW THAT HE HAD DENIED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 22 APPELLANT, AS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNT IN REPLY TO Q . NO. 167, HE FIRST SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT SHOWS CASH RECEIVED BY ME FROM J.K. DOSHI AND PAID TO HIM , HOWEVER, I DO NOT RECOLLECT THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS FURTHER CONFIRMED FROM REPLY TO Q-NO.172 RELIED UPO N BY THE APPELLANT AS HE IS EVEN REFERRING TO THE SOU RCE OF CASH TRANSACTIONS PAID TO THE APPELLANT WHEN HE SAY S THAT - SOURCE OF CASH TRANSACTIONS ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE ARE FROM CASH IN HAND OF MY BUSINESS CONCERNS OR UNACCOUNTED CASH FLOW IN MY CASE. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT SOME CASH MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXCHANGED FOR SAFE KEEPING ONLY.' THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH WAS ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT TRANSACTIONS HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE. OTHERWISE, HOW THE QUESTION OF SOURCE COMES INTO PLAY. I) THE FACT THAT SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS ACCEPTED T HE PEAK OF THE SOURCES OF THESE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THIS ACCOUNT, IN HIS OWN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (RELIED AND ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSIONS AS REFERRED EARLIER) SHOWS THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAVING ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE. J) THE FACT THAT SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS GIVEN CERTA IN INCOHERENT AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN THE CROS S EXAMINATION HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT S THAT THE TWO I.E. THE APPELLANT AND SHRI NIRANIAN SHAH A RE CLOSELY RELATED AND HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY BEEN ENGAG ED IN CLANDESTINE TRANSACTIONS EVEN IN VIOLATION OF FE RA LAWS. EVEN THIS STATEMENT SHOWS THAT HE IS GOING HO T AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME. AT ONE HAND HE SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH SHRI JAYENDRA K. DOSHI IN CASH AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE SAYS THAT THE SAME TRANSACTIONS IN CASH BELONG TO H IM ONLY. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT HE SAYS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE WITH ANYBODY ELSE. DEFINITELY, THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE WITH ONESELF. IT HAS ALSO TO BE SEEN THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN CASH RELATED TO FERA WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 23 VIOLATIONS RECORDED IN THE SAME ACCOUNT ARE NOT DENIED. ON ONE HAND HE SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND ON THE OTHE R HE SAYS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE APPELLANT IN CHEQUE/DD ARE RECORDED. THE ATTEMPT BY SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH TO HELP THE APPELLANT, WHEREIN THERE WERE NO FURTHER TAX IMPLICATIONS TO HIM CANNOT BE TAKEN TO DILUTE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES WHICH SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BEYOND DOUBT. K) THE BRINGING INTO TAXATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE END OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH IN HIS CASE DOES NOT ENTI TLE THE APPELLANT FOR ANY RELIEF. THERE ARE ALWAYS TWO ENDS TO A TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, AND EACH HAS TO EXPLAIN AND CATER TO ITS END OF TRANSACTION. FOR INSTANCE, A SELLER OF PROPERTY HAS TO PAY THE CORRE CT CAPITAL GAINS OR PROFITS AND THE PURCHASER TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE. TAXATION IN ONE HANDS CANNOT IN ANY CA SE ENTITLE THE OTHER FOR RELIEF. IN FACT, IT IS AN EV IDENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. TO SUM UP, IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE FERA AUTHORITIES ; HE HAS ACCEPTED ALL THE CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES THEREIN A S REPRESENTING HIS TRANSACTIONS OR TRANSACTIONS ON HI S BEHALF; ALTHOUGH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT HAVING DATES AND DETAILS, THESE WERE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT HIMS ELF TO THE FERA AUTHORITIES, EVEN THE TRANSACTIONS IN CASH AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN CONTRAVENTION OF FERA LAW WERE ACCEPTED AS BELONGING TO HIM AND WERE NEVER RETRACTED; SOME CAS H TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THIS ACCOUNT WERE TRACED T O ACCOUNTS SEIZED FROM ASSESSEE'S POSSESSION IN A SEP ARATE SEARCH; SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS OWN CASE AND THE TRANSACTIO NS BY CHEQUES / DRAFTS ARE NOT EVEN DENIED TO BE TRUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS RECORDED WERE ONLY SELECTIVELY BELONGING TO THE APP ELLANT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F MAJORITY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS BEING ADMITTEDLY GEN UINE, I DO NOT FIND IOTA OF A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE RE MAINING TRANSACTIONS WERE BEING RECORDED BY SHRI NIRANJAN S HAH FOR WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 24 THE FUN OF IT. IT DOES NOT APPEAL TO MY COMMON SENS E THAT A PRUDENT PERSON MAINTAINING DETAILED ACCOUNTS WOULD MIX FICTITIOUS ENTRIES WITH GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AS IS BEING TRIED TO BE MADE OUT BY THE APPELLANT. I AM OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT MERELY A CASE WHERE TRANSACT IONS FOUND RECORDED BY/IN THE POSSESSION OF THIRD PARTY ARE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATING E VIDENCES. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THERE ARE IRREFUTABLE EVIDE NCES THAT NOT ONLY THE TWO PARTIES WERE CONNECTED BUT ADMITTE DLY ENTERED INTO OUT OF BOOK TRANSACTION WHICH EVEN INF RINGED AGAINST STRINGENT LAWS LIKE FERA. THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE HELD TO BE GENUINE AND THE APPE LLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH ARE BASICALLY THOSE CONFIRMED BY THE THEN CIT(A) IN THE YEAR 2000 ON THE ISSUE. I AGREE AND CONFIRM THE DECISIONS MADE BY HIM ON THE ISSUE OF T HE DATE AND THE SEQUENCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE WORKIN G OF REQUIRED ADDITIONS. THE ADDITIONS ARE THEREFORE, CO NFIRMED IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4 AND 5 IN A LL THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 3.7 LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE S UBMITTED BEFORE US THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG ADDITION OF RS.1,83,37,910/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES TO SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED IN R ESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SO, ADDITION IS NOT DESIRABLE IN ASSESEES CASE, WHICH WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CI T(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED BY F EMA FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT SAID STATEMENT IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN FEMA ALREADY STOOD REFLECTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY INCOME TAX WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 25 AUTHORITIES. REGARDING FEMA PROCEEDING, LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN FEMA PROCEEDINGS , FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIALS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE EMANATING FROM THE RECORDS, THE E VIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CHARGES ALLEGED IN THE SCN, THE SUBMISSIONS BOTH WRITTEN AS WELL AS ORAL, MADE BY/OR ON BEHALF OF THE NOTICEES. THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF FLOPPY I SEIZED BY THE INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT FROM SH. NIRANJAN SHAH CONTAIN THE ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PERSONS. PAGE NOS. 53 TO 59 OF THE SAID FLOPPY CONTAINED AN ACCOUNT TITLED '36'. AS PER THE INDEX ON PAGE 1 OF THE PRINTOUT, THE A/C TITLED '36' IS IN T HE NAME OF 'JK'. PAGE NO. 35 OF THE SAID PRINTOUT IS THE A/C O F ONE 'CHURCHIL' WHICH INTERALIA CONTAINED A DEBIT ENTRY VIZ. 'DE. 86 - A/C. JK TO VIPUL BY JK -200 - 00', WHILE EXPLAI NING THIS ENTRY, SH. VIPUL R. SHALL, IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 25. 6.92 INTERALIA DEPOSED THAT 'JK' MENTIONED ABOVE, WAS SH . J.K. DOSHI. SH. J.K. DOSHI'S A/C AT PAGES 53 TO 59 OF THE PRINT OUT OF FLOPPY 1 CONTAINED VARIOUS DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTR IES FROM 29.3.88 TO 30.1.92. THESE PAGES INTERALIA CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES WHICH APPEARED TO BE CONNECTED WI TH THE TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE. SL. NO. PG. NO. OF THE THE PRINTOUT I PARTICULARS OF THE ENTRY DEBIT CREDIT 1 55 US $ 80.00 AT LONDON 1200.00 2 55 PND. 66.0 141.00 3 56 AT HK 151.00 4 57 22.7.88 - REF. 15.00 AT HK 261.00 5 57 20.5.89 US $100.00 2050.00 6 58 5.6.90 -AT SINGAPORE 1075.00 7 58 5.9 .90 TO ASHOKBHAI 2100.00 WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 26 A/C. H. MEHTA 8 58 29.12.90 TO NIRUBHAI A/C. ANIL USA - DATE MAY NOT BE CORRECT 200.00 9 29.12.91 TO NANDA REF. ANIL LAS PALMAS 1150.00 10 58 28.1.91 TO N. PARIKH. REF. ATUL PATIL REED. 20.00 AT ANIL 450 11 58 9.3.91 REF. US $ 250.00 TO KARTIK 5850.00 12 58 31.5.91 ORDER BY VIPUL FOR ANIL USA ON 5.6.91 100.00 13 59 1.7.91 TO CHURCHIL. REF. ANIL FOR USD 15.00 400 14 59 5.10.91 TO PRADIP SHAH A/C ANIL FR. 151.00 5000.00 SH. JK, DOSHI WAS SUMMONED AND WAS EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. HIS STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON 10.7.92, 11.7.92, 21.9.92 AND 7.10.92. IN THESE STATEMENTS, SH. J.K. DOSHI INTER ALIA STATE D THAT HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH MANY COMPANIES IN AHMEDABAD AS DIRECTOR INCLUDING OJAS LEASING LTD.; THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE, SON, DAUGHTER, SH. NIRANJAN SHAH, BINDU AND H ER MOTHER VISITED AUSTRALIA, SINGAPORE, BANGKOK ETC. I N JUNE 1987; THAT SH. NIRANJAN SHAH IS HIS WIFE'S AUNT'S S ON AND SH. NIRANJAN SHAH HAS PURCHASED APPROX. RS. 7 LACS WORTH SHARES OF OJAS LEASING LTD. IN THE YEAR 1987. WIT H REGARD TO PAGES 1 & 53 TO 59 OF PRINT OUT OF FLOPPY I SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SH. NIRANJAN SHAH, SH. J.K.DOSHI INTERA LIA STATED THAT AT PAGE 1, AT SR. NO. 36 OF THE SAID DO CUMENT HIS NAME IN SHORT J.K' WAS MENTIONED; THAT PAGES 53 TO 59 OF THE SAID DOCUMENT RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER TAKEN WITH SH. NIRANJAN SHAH BY HIM OF HIS CONCERN; THAT DEBIT ENTRIES UNDER THE HEADING 36 IN PAGES 53, 54 ; 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 REPRESENTED THE AMOUNTS IN INDIAN RUPEES PAI D BY SH. NIRANJAN SHAH/HIS CONCERN OR BY HIS MEN TO HIM OR TO WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 27 ANYBODY ON HIS BEHALF; THAT CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE S AID DOCUMENT REPRESENTED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN INDIAN CUR RENCY BY HIM OR THROUGH HIS CONCERN TO SH. NIRANJAN SHAH/ HIS CONCERN OR TO ANYBODY ON HIS BEHALF; THAT THE FIGUR ES WRITTEN UNDER THE HEAD 36 WERE EXPRESSED IN INDIAN RUPEES A ND WHILE READING THE AMOUNTS DECIMALS WERE TO BE OMITT ED. FOLLOWING ENTRIES INCRIMINATORY IN NATURE FROM FORE IGN EXCHANGE OF VIEW FIGURED IN THE PRINTOUT OF THE FLO PPY 1 SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SH. NIRANJAN SHAH: EXPLAINING THE VARIOUS ENTRIES PERTAINING TO HIM, APPEARING IN A/C. NO. 36 OF THE COMPUTER PRINT OUT F-L, SH. J.K. DOSHI, IN HIS VARIOUS STATEMENTS EXPLAINED THA T HIS ACCOUNT WITH SH. NIRANJAN SHAH WAS DEBITED BY RS. 1,20,000 AND RS. 14,100/-AGAINST US $ 8,000 AND STG . PND. 660 ARRANGED BY SH. NIRANJAN SHAH IN LONDON FOR PAR AG KIRMAR PAL BHAVNAGARI, HIS EMPLOYEE (I.E. SH. J.K. DOSHI); THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY RS. 2,05,000 A GAINST US $ 10,000 PROVIDED BY SH. NIRANJAN SHAH TO HIM AT SINGAPORE IN MAY 1989; THAT HIS ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY RS. 26,100 AGAINST US $ 1500 PROVIDED BY SH. NIRANJAN S HAH IN HONGKONG TO NIKIL R. PARIKH IN JULY 1988; THAT HE R ECEIVED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF RS. 26,100 FROM NIKHIL R. PARI KH; THAT HIS ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY RS. 15,100 AGAINST EQUIV ALENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROVIDED BY SH. NIRANJAN SHAH IN H ONG KONG TO VARIOUS PERSONS FROM WHOM HE (DOSHI) HAD RE CEIVED REIMBURSEMENT AND THAT HIS ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED BY R S. 1,07,500 AGAINST SINGAPORE DOLLARS 10,0007- PROVIDE D BY SH. NIRANJAN SHALL TO NIRISH BABULAL SHAH IN SINGAP ORE IN JUNE 1990. SH. J.K. DOSHI FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD PAID RS. 20,000 TO NIRUBHAI ON 29.12.1990, RS. 1,15 ,000/-. TO NANDA, RS. 45,000/- TO PARIKH, RS. 10,000 TO SOM EBODY ON 13.5.91, RS. 40,000 TO CHURCHILL ON 1.7.91 AND R S. 5,00,000/- TO PRADIP SHAH ON 5.10.91 UNDER INSTRUCT IONS OF SH. NIRANJAN SHAH ON BEHALF OF ANIL OF USA. SH. PARAG KUMAR PAL BHAVNAGARI HAD ALSO ADMITTED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.10.92 THAT HE RECEIVED IN LON DON FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF US $ 8000 AND POUNDS 660. SH. NIKHIL PARIKH VIDE STATEMENT DTD. 2.4.93 HAS ADMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED US $ 1500 IN HONGKONG AND THAT WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 28 ON RETURN HE MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 26,100 TO SH. J. K. DOSHI. SH. NIRISH BABULAL SHAH VIDE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.10.9 2 AND STATEMENT DTD. 27.10.93 HAD CONFIRMED THAT SH. J.K. DOSHI HAD ARRANGED SING. $ 10,000 FOR HIM AND HE PA ID RS. 1,07,500 TO SH. J.K. DOSHI IN INSTALMENTS. SH. NIRANJAN SHAH IN HIS STATEMENTS DATED 15.9.93, 6.10.93, 7.10.93, 13.12.93 AND 23.2.94 EXPLAINED TH E TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN A/C NO. 36 OF SH. J.K. DO SHI. IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 15.9.93, SH. NIRANJAN SHAH HAS I NTER ALIA STATED THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS IN INDIAN RUPEES A ND WAS REGARDING SH. J.K. DOSHI OF OJAS LEASING LTD., AHME DABAD, WHO IS THE HUSBAND OF HIS MATERNAL AUNT'S DAUGHTER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAME ACCOUNTS WERE AT PAGES 106, 107 AND 78 TO 83 OF A2. THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES OF TRA NSACTIONS DATED 19.1.90, 24.1.90, 25.1.90, 19.4.90, 20.4.90 A ND 24.4.90 WERE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 46, 43, 316, 315 AN D 313 OF A 10. THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES DATED 9.6.90, 30.4.90, 1 3.6.90, 15.6.90, 2.7.90, 4.7.90, 5.5.90 WERE RESPECTIVELY A VAILABLE ON PAGES 353, 310, 351, 350, 71, 70, 69 AND 217 OF A 10. SIMILARLY, THE TRANSACTIONS DATED 28.1.91 FOR RS. 1 ,15,000/- AND RS. 45,000/-PERTAINING TO US D 2,000 AS NOTED O N PAGE 258 OF A-11. ALSO PAGE 258 OF ALL CONTAINS THE ORI GINAL ENTRY REGARDING TRANSACTION OF US D 25,000 ON 9.3.91. T HE CORRESPONDING ENTRY REGARDING THIS TRANSACTION IS F IGURING ON 88/F1 AGAINST THE DATE 10.3.91 IN NILESH J. VADHANI US D A/C. THE ORIGINAL NOTINGS OF TRANSACTIONS DATED 1 .6.9L, 14.6.91, 23.7.91, 9.8.91, 7.9.91, 13.9.91, 16.9.91, 29:10.91, 29.1.92 AND 30.1.92 WERE FIGURING ON PAGES 500, 507 , 512, 372, 140, 137, 136, 179 AND 11 OF A 11. THE DEBIT TRANSACTIONS DATED 1.9.91, 25.10.91WERE REFLECTED O N PAGES 144 AND 181 OF A 11. PAGE 191 OF A 11 CONTAIN AN ENTRY '5 JK TO PRADIP SHAH A/C. ANIL USA FOR 15150/- US D', REGARDING THE TRANSACTION DTD. 5.10.91 ON59/FL. AS ALREADY STATED US D STANDS FOR US DOLLAR. THE ACCOUNTS ON PAGES 58 AND 59 OF FL SHALL BE READ WITHOUT THE DECIMAL . IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 6.10.93 HE HAD STATED THAT THE DEBIT ENTRIES DTD. 3.10,89 AND 4.10.89 FOR R&. 5 LACS EACH REGARD ING DD FOR BOSTON WERE CORRELATED WITH THE DEBIT ENTRIES I N THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF ROMIL EXPORTS. IN HIS STATEMEN T DTD. WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 29 7.10.93 HE HAD STATED THAT RE HEREIN STANDS FOR ROM IL EXPORTS; RJ STANDS FOR RJ FINANCE AND CONSULTANCY LTD., AHMEDABAD; DEEPAKBHAI VADHANI ON 55/F1 IS T HE BROTHER OF NILESH J. VADHANI; VIPUL IS VIPUL R. SHAH; LYKA ON 58/FL IS LYKA LEASING LTD., AHMEDABAD. IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 13.12.93 LIE HAD STATED THAT M/S. OJ AS LEASING LTD. HAVE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARO DA, VILE PARLE. HE WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SAID CO MPANY TILL 1989. IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 23.2.94 SH. NIRANJAN SHAH HAD STATED THAT ON PAGE 58/FL, THE ACCOUNT OF J.K. DOSHI HAS BEEN DEBITED FOR RS. 5,85,000/- FOR US $ 25,000 MADE TO KARTIK THAKKAR IN USA @ RS. 23.40 PER DOLLAR. O N PAGE 56/F-L, THE ACCOUNT OF SH. J.K. DOSHI HAS BEEN DEBI TED FOR RS. 1,20,000 AGAINST US $ 8000 IN LONDON. THE ACCOU NT OF SH. J.K. DOSHI HAS BEEN DEBITED ON 20.5.89 BYRS. 2, 05,000 ON PAGE 57 OFF-1 AGAINST US $ 10,000/-. PAGE NO. 57 OF FL SHOWED THAT ACCOUNT OF SH. J.K. DOSHI HAS BEEN DEBI TED BY RS. 26,100 AGAINST US $ 1500/- IN HONGKONG. THE NAMES OF THE NOTICES I.E. S/ SH. J.K. DOSHI, PA RAG KUMAR PAL BHAVNAGRI, NIKHII R. PARIKH AND SH. NIRIS H BABULAL SHAH ARE NOT THE ONLY NAMES APPEARING IN TH E DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM SH. NIRANJAN SHAH. THERE ARE VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE, WHOSE NAMES ARE APPEARING IN THESE DOCUMENTS WHO HAD ENTERED INTO VARIOUS FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH SH. NIRANJAN SHAH. I WILL NOW DIS CUSS THE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS MADE WITH THESE PERSON S. SH. SATISH N. MODI, IS A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE OF SH. NIRANJAN SHAH, WHO, VIDE HIS STATEMENT DATED 10.7.9 2 UNDER SECTION 40 OF FERA 1973 HAD EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO PRINT OUTS FL THAT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF US $ 6110 BY HIM IN AUSTRALIA DURING A CONDUCTED TOUR HE PAID RS.1,25,255 TO SH. NIRANJAN J. SHAH HAH IN INDIA AT THE RATE OF RS. 25.50 PER DOLLAR; THAT HE HAD SIMILARLY PAID RS. 52,500 TO SH. NIRANJAN SHAH IN INDIA AGAINST RECEIP T OF US $ 2,100/- BY HIM IN MAY 1991 DURING A VISIT T O SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES; THAT HE HAD TAKEN ANOTHER A MOUNT OF US $ 2,900 DURING THE SAID FOREIGN VISIT FROM SH . NIRANJAN SHAH BUT THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO SH. HARSHAD ME HTA ALSO IN THE TOUR AND THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAME IS FIG URING IN WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 30 ACCOUNT NO. 5 A IN US DOLLAR OF HARSHAD MEHTA ON PA GE 73 OF PRINT OUTS FL, AND THAT SH. NIRANJAN SHAH HAD AR RANGED A TOTAL REMITTANCE OF US $ 13,000 TO HIM (SATISH MODY ) AND WIFE UNDER THE IMMUNITY SCHEME AND DEBITED RS. 4 , 44,000/- FROM HIS (SATISH MODY) ACCOUNT AS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 83 OF FL. SH. VIPUL R. SHAH IN HIS STATEMENTS DTD. 23.6,92, 24.6.92 AND 25.6.92 ETC. HAD EXPLAINED THAT DR. SHA RIK, A FRIEND OF KAMLESH (CO-BROTHER OF VIPUL), HAD RECEIV ED SH. PND. 3870 AGAINST RS.1,50,000 RECEIVED BY SH. NIRAN JAN SHAH THROUGH HIM (VIPUL SHAH); THAT THE ACCOUNT OF T HE SAID TRANSACTION IS FIGURING IN ACCOUNT NO.-2 ON PAGE 11 OF FL REGARDING CHANDRAKAUT D. CHARVADA IN LONDON; THAT S H. NIRANJAN SHAH HAD PROVIDED FR. 11,752/-THROUGH SH. NILESH VADHANI (DUBAI) TO PARESH GHEEWALA AGAINST PAYMENT O F RS. 52,000 THROUGH HIM (VIPUL) TO SH. NIRANJAN SHAH; THA T THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IS IN ACCOUNT NO. 8 ON PAGE 87 FL REGARDING NILESH VADHANI; THAT HE RECEIVED US $ 2000 IN HONG KONG FROM K. LALWANI OF M/S. ELKEY INTERNAT IONAL (HONG KONG) ON 25.8.90 AND THE TRANSACTION IS FIGUR ING IN ACCOUNT NO, 4 OF LALWANI ON PAGE 66 OF FL. KAMLESH N. SONI VIDE HIS STATEMENT DTD. 16.7.92 HAD CONFIRMED THAT HE CONTACTED VIPUL R. SHAH FOR FOREIG N EXCHANGE WORTH RS. 1.5 LAC FOR DR. KHWAJA SHARIK WH O WAS TO GO TO IRELAND; THAT VIPUL SHAH TOLD HIM THAT HE C OULD GET THE AMOUNT ARRANGED THROUGH SH. NIRANJAN SHAH AND T HAT DR. SHARIK THEREAFTER MET SH. VIPUL SHAH AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR POUNDS 3.870/-. IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 29.6.92, PARESH C. GHEEWALA H AD ADMITTED HAVING PAID RS. 52,000 IN INDIA AGAINST PA YMENT OF FR. FR. 11,7527-TO ONE OF HIS BUYERS IN FRANCE. SHRI CHURCHIL R. SHAH WHOSE ACCOUNT NO, 35 IN US $ FIGURING ON PAGE 51 OF FL HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED US $ 4500 IN SINGAPORE AS ARRANGED BY SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH. JAYANTILAL LIMBACHIA WHOSE NAME IS FIGURING IN SAID CHURCHIL'S ACCOUNT EXPLAINED THAT HE ARRANGED THROU GH SHRI WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 31 CHURCHIL R. SHAH US $ 3000 FOR THE VISIT OF ONE MRS . SANTOKBEN VAID TO LONDON AND NAIROBI. SHRI CHANDRAKANT N. GHELANI, WHO IS THE CO-BROTHER OF SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA VIDE HIS STATEMENT DD. 16.7.92 H AD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED US S 1000 FROM SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH THROUGH SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA DURING HIS TOUR TO AUSTRALIA; IN 1989; THAT HE HAD RECEIVED US $ 15 00 AND STERLING PND. 3000 FROM SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH-THROUGH SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA DURING HIS FOREIGN VISIT IN 1990; THA T HE RETURNED UNSPENT STG. PND. 3000 TO A PERSON WHO WAS WITH SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH IN HONG KONG AND THE SAME IS FIG URING IN ACCOUNT NO. 2 OF MR. CDC (I.E. MR. CHANDRAKANT D . CHARVADA). MRS. BINDU R. SHAH, WHO IS THE SISTER OF SHRI NIRAN JAN SHAH, VIDE HER STATEMENT DD. L6.6.92 HAD EXPLAINED AND ADMITTED THAT SHE RECEIVED US $ 8500 FROM SHRI NIRA NJAN SHAH DURING THE FOREIGN TOUR IN MAY 1991 AND PAID T HE SAME TO SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA AS REFLECTED IN A/C NO. 5 A. SHRI PRAVIN J. LAPASIA (EX-EMPLOYEE OF M/S ROMIL EXPORTS) WITH REFERENCE TO HIS ACCOUNT NO. 21 AND A CCOUNT NO. 30 OF DR. MOLEDINA (KAMPALA) IN PRINT-OUTSFL HA D EXPLAINED AND ADMITTED THAT HE ACQUIRED US $ 200 AN D UGANDA SHS. 6000 AS PER ARRANGEMENT MADE BY SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH DURING HIS FOREIGN VISIT. MRS. ROMA SHAH (EX-WIFE OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH) IN H ER STATEMENT DD. 27.7.92 WITH REFERENCE TO A/C NO. 6A OF MH ON PAGE 77 FL AND PAGE 158 OF A11 HAD EXPLAINED THA T SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAD SENT 20,000 CANADIAN DOLLARS TO J OSEPH OF CANADA FOR HER IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. M.H. SHAH. THE EVIDENCE DISCUSSED ABOVE PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THA T THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS FIGURING IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM SH. NIRANJAN SHAH ARE TRUE. S/SH. J.K. DOSHI, PARAG KUMAR PAL BHAVNAGARI, NIKHI L R. PARIKH AND SH. NIRISH BABULAL SHAH HAVE ADMITTED THE CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST THEM IN THE SCN. THE EVIDEN CE ON RECORD, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ALSO PROVE THE CHARGES A LLEGED WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 32 AGAINST THEM AS WELL AS SH, NIRANJAN SHAH AND I FIN D THEM GUILTY OF THE SAID CONTRAVENTION. SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH, HAS INTERALIA, CONTENDED THAT T HE COPIES OF THE PRINTOUTS OF THE FLOPPIES GIVEN TO HI M ARE ILLEGIBLE AND THAT IT WAS THE FLOPPIES AND NOT THE PRINTOUTS SEIZED FROM HIM AND THE PRINTOUT CANNOT THEREFORE B E RELIED UPON AS EVIDENCE. I FIND NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTIO N OF SHRI SHAH. THE SEIZED FLOPPIES WERE RESTORED ON THE COMP UTER IN THE OFFICE OF THE I.T. AUTHORITIES IN FRONT OF THE PANCHAS AND THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH , WHEN PRINTOUTS WERE TAKEN IN THEIR PRESENCE, AND COPIES OF THE SAME WERE GIVEN TO THEM ON 27.1.2000. AFTER SAID INSPECTION/ACTION ON 27.1.2000, SHRI SHAH HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE PRINTOUTS GIVERS TO HIM WERE NOT CLEAR OR THAT THE PRINTOUTS DID NOT REPRESENT THE CONTENTS O F THE FLOPPIES SEIZED FROM HIM. THE FLOPPIES AND OTHER DO CUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SHAH BY THE INCOM E TAX AUTHORITIES WERE UNDER PANCHANAMA DULY DRAWN UNDER PROPER AUTHORISATION UNDER THE IT. ACT. THEREFORE, I FIND NO REASON WHY THE SAID FLOPPIES AND THEIR CONTENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THESE PROCE EDINGS SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS ALSO DISOWNED CERTAIN DOCUME NTS OUT OF THE SEIZED FILES MARKED A-2 SEIZED FROM HIS RESIDENCE BY THE I. TAX AUTHORITIES AND HAS CONTENDED THAT T HOSE DOCUMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLANTED BY THE OFFICERS O F THE SEARCH PARTY OF THE I.TAX DEPARTMENT. SHRI NIRANJA N SHAH HAS RAISED THIS CONTENTION IN THE PAST, EITHER IN H IS VARIOUS RETRACTION LETTERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OR IN HIS APPL ICATIONS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SPL. COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) AT BOMBAY OR FOR THA T MATTER, EVEN BEFORE I.TAX AUTHORITIES OR OTHERWISE. MOREO VER, I FIND NO REASON WHY THE OFFICERS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPTT . SHOULD RESORT TO SUCH AN ACTION AND I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND I N WHAT WAY THEY WERE TO BE BENEFITED BY SUCH ALLEGED ACTIO N. THE PRINT OUT MARKED F-L AND F-2 OF THE COMPUTER FLOPPIES SEIZED FROM SH. NIRANJAN SHAH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED FILE MARKED A-2, SEIZED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. AS ALREADY EXPLAINED, ENTRIES CORROBORATING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS ARE APPEARING IN THE DESK DIARY MARKED A-LL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISOWNED BY SH. NIRANJAN SHAH. THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED THAT EVEN THOUGH SHRI SHAH HAS WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 33 DISOWNED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, THESE DOCUMENTS BELONGE D TO HIM ONLY AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS FIGURING IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE UNDERTAKEN BY/PERTAIN TO HIM ONLY. I MAY ADD HERE THAT THESE TYPES OF BASELESS ALLEGATIONS M ADE AGAINST THE GOVT, OFFICIALS, WHO ARE PERFORMING THE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THEM, ARE HIGHLY REPREHENSIBLE. THESE ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS ARE MADE BY THE NOTICEE WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES WHEN HE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO STATE IN HIS DEFENCE TO EXPLAIN THE TRA NSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM HI M, WHICH HE KNOW FULLY WELL THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE S AID DOCUMENTS SHALL GO AGAINST HIM. SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 3.9.93 T O 23.2.94 CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS EVIDENCE AS AT THA T TIME HE WAS AN ACCUSED PERSON BY VIRTUE OF THE SCN NO. T-4/ 18- B/93 (SCN - I) DD. 15.6.93 ISSUED TO HIM BY THE ADD L. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT AND THAT THE SAID STATEMENT S RECORDED FROM HIM WERE BY USE OF PHYSICAL ASSAULT, COERCION ETC. IN THIS CONNECTION, HE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTIO N TO VARIOUS LETTERS ETC. WRITTEN BY HIS ADVOCATE. FIRST OF ALL, I FAIL TO SEE ANY MERIT-IN THE ARGUMENT THAT ONCE A SCN FO R QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS ISSUED, THE .SAME EVIDENCE CANNOT BE USED FOR OTHER INFRINGEMENTS OF LAW, NOT COVERED BY SUCH EARLIER SCN; FOR OTHER RELEVANT QUASI JUDICIAL PROC EEDINGS. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THAT THE AFORESAID SCN REFERRED TO BY SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH PERTAINS TO THE SEIZURE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE TO WIT US $ 17204, STG. PND. 557, SING. $ 185, DM 220, SPANISH P. 1,67,000, UAE DHS. 1495, THAI BHATS 1322 AND KH $ 2 0 FROM HIS RESIDENCE BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. BY THIS SCN, SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAD BEEN CHARGED OF OTHERWI SE ACQUIRING THE AFORESAID FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHOUT TH E PERMISSION OF THE RBI IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION S OF SEC. 8(1) OF FERA 1973. THUS, IN THIS CASE, SHRI NIRANJ AN SHAH HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF OTHERWISE ACQUIRING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE SEIZED FROM HIS RESIDENCE WITHOUT THE REQU ISITE PERMISSION OF RBI. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS FAR AS THE TRANSACTION FIGURING IN THE DOCUMENT AND FLOPPIES S EIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH ARE CONCER NED, HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENCE, AT THE TIME OF WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 34 RECORDING HIS STATEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE TRANS ACTIONS FIGURING THEREIN, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I REJECT TH E CONTENTION OF SHRI SHAH THAT HIS STATEMENTS RECORDE D DURING THE PERIOD FROM 3.9.93 TO 23.2.94 COULD NOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. SHRI SHAH HAS RETRACTED THE SAID STATEMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS RECORDED BY USE OF FORCE, COERCI ON ETC. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD. NO MEDICAL REPORT EVIDENCING THE USE OF ANY FORCE ON SH. SHAH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE ME IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. WHENEVER A STATEMENT IS CHALLENGED AS HAVING BEEN RECORDED BY USE OF UNFAIR MEANS, IT MUST BE SH OWN TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY SUCH MEANS AS ALLEGED WHICH S H. SHAH HAS FAILED TO DO. THEN ONLY THE CONTENTS OF SU CH STATEMENTS CAN HAVE NO VALUE AS HELD BY HON'BLE KER ALA HIGH COURT IN P.S. BARKATALI VS. DE (AIR 1981 KER. 8 1). APART FROM SUBMITTING COPIES OF CERTAIN LETTERS WRI TTEN BY SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH'S ADVOCATE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HIS PETITION BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT (WHICH WAS REJECT ED). SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE ME TO INDICATE THAT HIS STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE M ANNER ALLEGED BY HIM. ON GOING THROUGH THE STATEMENTS, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN MY MIND TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI NIRANJAN SHAH WERE VOLUNTARILY R ECORDED AND CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THE ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS. THE EVIDENCE DISCUSSED ABOVE I.E. THE ENTRIES APPEA RING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS COUPLED WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THE NOTICEES, AS WELL AS OTHER PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE FIGURING IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED, FROM SH. NIRANJAN SHAH AS WELL AS THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE NOTICES, (OTHER THAN SH. NIRANJAN SHAH) I AM SATISFIED THAT THE CHARGES LEVE LLED AGAINST S/ SH. NIRANJAN SHAH, J.K. DOSHI, PARAG KUM AR PAL, NIKHIL R. PARIKH AND SH, NIRISH BABULAT SHAH AS ALL EGED IN THE SCN ARE PROVED AND I FIND THEM GUILTY OF THE SA ID CONTRAVENTIONS. S/SH. J.K. DOSHI, PARAG KUMAR PAL, BHAVNAGARI, NIKHIL R. PARIKH AND NIRISH BABULAL SHA H HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIO NS ALLEGED IN THE SCN DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THEIR CONTOL. WHILE IMPOSING PENALTIES ON THESE NOTICEES, I WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 35 CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THEY HAD NO DELIBERATE INTEN TION TO DEFY THE LAW, BUT HAD UNDERTAKEN THE AFORESAID TRAN SACTIONS WITHOUT ANY MALAFIDES, DUE TO THE EXIGENCY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE. ACCORDINGLY, I IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING P ENALTIES (CONSOLIDATED) ON THE NOTICEES, FOR THE OFFENCES, D ETAILED IN THE SCN: I) SH. NIRANJAN SHAH - PENALTY OF RS. 4,50,000/- (RS. FOUR LACS AND FI FTY THOUSAND ONLY) II) SH. J.K. DOSHI - PENALTY OF RS. 90,000/-(RS. NINETY THOUSAND ONLY) III) PARAG KUMAR PAL BHAVNAGARI - PENALTY OF RS. 8 ,500/- (RS. EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) IV) SH. NIKHIL R. PARIKH - PENALTY OF RS. 1,500/ - (RS. ONE (THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) V) SH. NIRISH BABULAL SHAH -PENALTY OF RS. 10,000 /-(RS. TEN THOUSAND ONLY) THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,50,000/- (RS. FOUR LACS AND FI FTY THOUSAND ONLY) IMPOSED ON SH. NIRANJAN SHAH, RS. 90,000/- (RS, NINETY THOUSAND ONLY) IMPOSED ON SH. J.K. DOSHI, RS. 8,500/- (RS. EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDR ED ONLY) IMPOSED ON SH. PARAG KUMAR PAL B, RS. 1,500/- (RS. ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) IMPOSED ON SH. NIKHIL R . PARIKH AND RS . 10.000/-(RS.TEN THOUSAND ONLY) IMPOSED ON SH. NIRISH BABULAL SHAH SHOULD BE DEPOSITED IN T HE OFFICE OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AT MITTAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 21 EITHER BY DEMAND DR AFT OR PAY ORDER DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE DRAWING & DISBU RSING OFFICER WITHIN FORTY FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF REC EIPT OF THIS ORDER. WHILE DEPOSITING PENALTY, THIS ADJUDICATION ORDER NUMBER AND DATE SHOULD BE QUOTED CLEARLY. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE POINTED OUT THAT CIT(A) AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WAS NOT H AVING ADVANTAGE OF DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS FEMA PROCEEDING . ACTION IS CLAIMED TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF NIRANJAN S HAH AND OTHERS WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 36 INCLUDING ASSESSEE UNDER RELEVANT PROVISION OF FEMA AND MATTER HAS TO BE REVIEWED IN LIGHT OF SAME. HOWEVE R, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT IN POSITION TO TEL L LATEST POSITION IN THIS REGARD. EVEN LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT IN POSITION TO TELL LATEST PO SITION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDING TO US, FEMA PROCEEDING HAS A BEA RING ON THE ISSUE AND LATEST POSITION OF SAME SHOULD BE KNO WN. SO, IN VIEW OF SUBMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES AND IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE WHOLE ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DI RECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND AS PER FACT AND LAW AND IN LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, OF COURS E, AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON PRELIMINARY GRO UND AND ON FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT AT HAND. 3.7 AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NOS. 391 TO 396/AHD/2 013. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, TH EY ARE ALSO RESTORED AS PER FACT AND LAW TO ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 4.1 WEALTH TAX PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THESE YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION ARE CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE INCOME TAX P ROCEEDING AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. SO, THEY ARE ALSO RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME A S PER FINAL WTA NOS. 02-08/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 1985-86 TO 91-92 & ITA NOS. 390-396 FOR A.Y. 1986-87 TO 92-93 (JAYENDRA K. DOSHI VS. ACWT/ACIT) PAGE 37 OUTCOME IN CORRESPONDING INCOME TAX PROCEEDING AND AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON PRELIMINARY GROUND AND ON FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE A RE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT AT HAND. 5. AS A RESULT, INCOME TAX APPEALS AND WEALTH TAX APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE IN ALL YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/03/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,