Shri Mepa Ram Bheel S/o Sh. Rupa Ram Bheel, JODHPUR V. ITO, JODHPUR

ITA 412/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5744 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SAKSENA
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Block assessment; Condonation of delay; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 412/JU/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 1998-99 SHRI MEPA RAM BHEEL VS I.T.O., WARD -3 (3), S/O SH RUPA RAM BHEEL, JODHPUR. VILLAGE UCHIYADA DIST., JODHPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SAKSENA, D.R., ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, J.M.: 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DATED 6-1-2010 MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF DELAY OF 20 DAYS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FURTHER HE OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE AS SESSEMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 153 C BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD SR. U.C. JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SH. S.K.SAXENA, LD. D. R. THE ASSESSEE HAS 2 ALSO FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALO NG WITH AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSE L ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE SAID APPLICATION. THE LD. D .R., ASSERTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE IN CONDONING THE DELAY. AF TER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE FACTS STATED IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY ABOUT 20 DAYS, THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AND WITHOUT OPP ORTUNITY. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN A GROUP CASE OF 19 PERSONS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF TH EM. IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010, (ITA NO.403 TO 406/JU/2010) BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORT ION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER. THIS IS A GROUP OF FOUR APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSES SEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 06.01.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT ON T HE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, AS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WRONG LY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, RATHER O UGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ORDER SO FRAMED U/S. 153C READ WITH SEC TION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEA RD SHRI U.C. JAIN, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AMIT NIGAM, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BEEJA RAM BHEEL, JODHPUR & OTHERS (ITA NOS. 487, 84 8, 850 TO 3 856, 793 TO 796/JU/2007, ORDER DATED 27.06.2008). I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUT ED BY 19 PERSONS INCLUDING THESE ASSESSEES BY FURTHER SUBMIT TING THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL 19 PERSONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS, IDENTICA LLY, DECIDED THE CASES OF 13 PERSONS VIDE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 27.0 6.2008. THEREFORE, THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE AF ORESAID DECISION. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS FAIRLY CONSENTED BY THE LD. DR. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF SHRI BEEJA RAM BHEEL & OTHERS (DATE D 27.06.2008) : ALL THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVI NG BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A), JODHP UR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS FIELD BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE H AVE RAISED THE COMMON ISSUES IN ALL THESE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF I.T. ACT, AGAINST THEM A S WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AS SESSMENTS AS DETAILED HEREUNDER; 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF I.T. ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AND AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER US/ 153C READ WITH SEC. 143(3) OF I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND FRO M THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOWING SUCH INVESTMENT BY THE ASS ESSEE. 4 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS THAT NO FINDING WAS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO WARRANT INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND NO DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS WERE FOUND FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOWING INVEST MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 CHALLENGING THE UPHOLDING OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/ S 234A AND 234B OF THE I.T. ACT. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUES R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 1. THE LEARNED AR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE LEGAL A SPECT INVOLVE DIN THE 1 ST TWO ISSUES CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT CLE ARLY AND CATEGORICALLY MANDATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER O F THE SEARCHED PERSON MUST SEND THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS OR OTHER M ATERIAL FOUND TO HAVE BEEN BELONGING TO ANY OTHER PERSONS T HAN SEARCHED PERSON, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH O THER PERSON TO PROCEED AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON AS PER LAW. UNDISP UTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ON HAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT ONLY RECORDED ANY FINDING IN THE ORD ER PASSED AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON BUT ALSO AHS NOT SENT T HE DOCUMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE BUT FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THEREFORE THE INITIA TION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 153C IS VOID A B INITIO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWIN G CITATIONS; 1.LOONAWAT JAYANT MANIKLA VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 297 ITR 155 (AT). 2.PRANSUKHLAL & SONS JEWLLERS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 116 TTJ 197 (MUM) 3.MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT & ANOTHER REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341 (SC). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT I N CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2006 DT. 27.2.2006 AND REPORTED IN 282 ITR 222 (STAT). 5 2 THEREFORE HE HAS ADVERTED TO THE MERITS OF THE AD DITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDING I NTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECI ATED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIMS MADE I N THE RETURNS FILED BY THEM AND THE BASIS OF THE CLAIMS ITSELF. H E SIMPLY RELIED ON THE MENTIONING OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED AS PER THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE SPECIFIC M ENTION MADE IN THE SALE DEEDS UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAVE PUR CHASED THE LAND WHICH CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT TH E MAJOR PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID EARLIER TO THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE- DEEDS AND A MEGRE PART OF IT ONLY PAID AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEEDS. IF THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WILL N OT BE MADE. THUS EITHER UNDER LAW OR ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE T HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AS UPHELD BY THE C IT(A) ARE UNSUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND HENCE ARE LIAB LE TO BE CANCELLED BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. CONTRARY TO THIS THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTE NDED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE STRICTLY COM PLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. IN EVIDENCE THEREOF HE HA S FILED THE COPIES OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND AL SO THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY HIM TO THE CONCERNED JCIT IN WHOSE JUR ISDICTION THE ASSESSEE ARE RESIDING AS HE CAN NOT DIRECTLY DI RECT THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT, ENCLOSING THERETO THE COPIES OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOU R OF THE SEARCHED PERSON S WELL AS THE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAV ITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS O F THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THERE IS VERY MUCH COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE VERY MUCH V ALID AND REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. 4. ADVERTING TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AVE NOT PROVED THEIR CLAIMS MADE ON THEIR RETURNS BY PRODUC ING COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. HENCE THE ADDITIONS AR E VERY MUCH 6 JUSTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. THUS CONTENDIN G HE SOUGHT FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPH OLDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. HE F URTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AUTHORITIES RELIED ON BY THE L D. AR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS THEY WERE RENDERED UNDER ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES. 5. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILAB LE BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE RELE VANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS RELIED ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON THERE IS NO S ATISFACTION RECORDED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS BELONGING TO AND R ELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT SENT TO ASSESSING OFF ICERS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE, BUT THEY WERE ROUTE D THROUGH THE CONCERNED JCITS., AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COPIES OF THE LETTERS PRODUCED BEFORE US. THAT TOO ORIGINALS WERE NOT SE NT BUT ONLY COPIES WERE SENT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT., WH ICH IS AKIN TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 158BD OF THE A CT., EXCEPT THE EXPRESSION ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO ANY PERSON AND WHICH WAS INTERPRETED BY THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA) AND RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO SHOW THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT; 1. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT AN Y MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONG S OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED. 2. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZ ED OR REQUISITIONED ARE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSONS. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ACQUIRE JURISDICTION AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS. 7 THE HONURABLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR MAKIN G BLOCK ASSESSMENT ARE MANDATORY AND SHOULD BE SATISFIED. S INCE THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS AR E AKIN TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC 153A, 153B AND 153C RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DICTUM OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT WHICH HAS FURTHER HELD THAT FAILURE TO RECORD SATISFACTION THAT SUCH PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON HAS UND ISCLOSED INCOME AND TO TRANSMIT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING TH E SEARCH BUT BELIEVED TO BE BELONGING TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN S EARCHED, TO THE OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION ON THE EPSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED WILL INVALIDATE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED. IN ALL THESE CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEA RCHED PERSON (KARAN SINGH) HANDED OVER THE ZEROX COPY OF THE ZER OX COPY SEIZED FROM KARAN SINGH AND WROTE A LETTER TO JCIT CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR TO TAKE ACTION U/S 153C AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT AMOUNTED TO BE A VALID ACTIO N IF EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONCERNED. ACCORDING LY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SEC. 153C OF THE IT ACT, AS THE DOCUME NT SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON IS ONLY POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN WITH A RIDER THAT THEY RESER VED THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE SAME AT THEIR WISH AT ANY FUTURE TIME AN D IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE ENABLING THE INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT., ON THE OTHER HAND IT EXCLUSIVE LY BELONGS TO THE SEARCHED PERSON AS IT IS ENABLING HIM TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN WHO HAVE ATTORNED RIGHTS SPECIFIED THEREIN IN FAVOUR OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDI NGS U/S 153C AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HEREIN ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND HENCE THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY QUASHED. 6. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE I N THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS NEED NOT BE ADVERTED TO AS THEY ARE CONS EQUENT TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C, WHICH WAS Q UASHED BY US AS STATED SUPRA AS THEY WILL NOT SURVIVE DUE TO THE QUASHING OF THE PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AS WAS HELD BY THE HONOURABL E CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAWATMAL HARAKCHAND VS. C IT REPORTED IN 129 ITR 346 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ON CE THE 8 INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS HELD TO B E INVALID WHATEVER FOLLOWS THEREAFTER MUST ALSO NECESSARY BE INVALID. HENCE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITI ONS WILL NOT SURVIVE AT ALL. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HE REBY ALLOWED. 4. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH T HE FACTS OF THE APPEALS BEFORE US, THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ALSO, AS THE APPEA LS BEFORE US ARE OUT OF 19 PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE POWER OF ATTORNE Y. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS TWO WAY . FIRSTLY, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY SO FOUND CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE EXECUT ANTS OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, AS THROUGH THIS INSTRUMENT, AN A UTHORITY IS GIVEN OR CONFIRMED BY THE EXECUTANTS IN FAVOUR OF T HE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH POWERS ARE DELEGATED. SECONDLY, THE IMPUG NED ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.06.2008. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF T HE BUNCH OF 13 APPEALS, HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING LOONAWAT JAYANT MANIKLAL VS. DCIT,297 ITR 155 (AT), PRANSUKHLAL & SONS JEWELLERS VS. ACIT, 116 TTJ 197 (MUM), ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWALDAS, 103 ITR 437 (SC), MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT & ANOTHER, 289 ITR 341 (SC) AND ALSO THE CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2006 DATED 27.02.2006 ISSUED B Y CBDT REPORTED IN 282 ITR 222 (ST). SINCE THE FACTS AND I SSUES ARE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4. HOWEVER, SINCE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GONE INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE P RINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO EITHER PARTY THIS FILE IS BEING SENT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9 LAW FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FURNI SH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 4-10- 2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 *AKS/- LIST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON (AM) (JM) COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT, 2. RESPONDENT, 3. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 4. CIT, 5. D/R 6. GUARD FILE