DCIT, 3(1), Indore V. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., Indore

ITA 451/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2993 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGRAWAL; PANKAJ MOGRA A RS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Difference of opinion; Documents seized; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 13; 153; 153C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

[IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS.99 TO 101/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & ITANO.1044/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 CIT(CENTRAL) - 1, INDORE / VS. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI 41-42, SAMPAT, AVENUE BICHOLI MARDANA, INDORE ( REVENUE ) ( RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADUPK6103B CO NO.25/IND/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITANO.1044/IND/2016 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI PANKAJ KALANI 41-42, SAMPAT, AVENUE BICHOLI MARDANA, INDORE / VS. CIT(CENTRAL) - 1, INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADUPK6103B [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 2 IT(SS)A NOS.104 TO 106/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & ITANO.1045/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 CIT(CENTRAL) - 1, INDORE / VS. SHRI DIPAK KALANI 41-42, SAMPAT, AVENUE BICHOLI MARDANA, INDORE ( REVENUE ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADUPK610 2 A CO NO.26/IND/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITANO.1045/IND/2016 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI DIPAK KALANI 41-42, SAMPAT, AVENUE BICHOLI MARDANA, INDORE / VS. CIT(CENTRAL) - 1, INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ADUPK6 10 2A APPELLANT BY SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL & PANKAJ MOGRA ARS REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI , CIT - DR ITANOS.451 TO 453/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 D CIT - 3 (1 ) , INDORE / VS. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. INDORE ( REVENUE ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAACK7074P [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 3 CO NOS.39 TO 41/IND/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITANOS.451 TO 453/IND/2018 ) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. INDORE / VS. DCIT - 3(1), INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAACK7074P ITANO.399/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. INDORE / VS. DCIT - 3(1), INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAACK7074P ITANO.448/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 D CIT - 1( 1 ) , INDORE / VS. M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD. 11, KALANI HOUSE, TUKOGANJ MAIN ROAD, INDORE ( REVENUE ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAACN5986H [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 4 CO NO.38/IND/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITANO.448/IND/2018 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD. 11, KALANI HOUSE, TUKOGANJ MAIN ROAD, INDORE / VS. D CIT - 3 ( 1 ) INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAACN5986H APPELLANT BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA, & SHRI MANJIT SACHDEVA ARS REVENU E BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 29.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.03.2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS BUNCH OF 19 APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE(S) & REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, INDORE DATED 21.03.2016, & 25.07.20 16, 05.02.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE TAKEN FOR HEARING SIMULTANEOU SLY BEING INTERCONNECTED AS SAME RELATE TO A KALANI GROUP. TH E [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 5 REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN IT(SS)ANOS.99 & 104/IND/2016(PANKAJ KALANI & DIPAK KALANI): ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .1,67,63,500/- RS.1,43,000/- & RS.5,01,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED RECEIPT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO LIGHT BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT(SS)A NOS.100 & 105/IND/16 (PANKAJ KALANI & DIPAK KALANI): ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .3,47,41,500/- RS.3,33,70,000/-,RS.18,000/- RS.12,50,000/- & RS.12 ,71,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO L IGHT BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT(SS)A NOS.101 & 106/IND/16 (PANKAJ KALANI & DIPAK KALANI): ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .35,00,000/- RS.15,75,000/-,RS.3,75,79,500/- RS.6,76,500/- & RS. 80,68,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT ON PROTECTIVE BAS IS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO L IGHT BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITANO.1044 & 1045/IND/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13(PANKAJ KALANI & DIPAK KALANI): 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B Y DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,22,882/- BY ADMITTING ADDITIONA L DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITHOUT CALLING REMAND REPORT . [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 6 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 7,19,608/- MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32 ,044/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER UTENS ILS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO OF RS. 1,96,58,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT INTO LIGHT BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,49,75,466/- BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF S TATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) HAS NO RELEVANCE. THE APPELLANT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR AL TER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE; THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN CO NO.25 & 26/IND/2017 (PANKAJ KALANI & DIPAK KALANI): 1.1] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT[A] ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITIO NAL INCOME AS DECLARED AND INCORPORATED IN THE RETURN O F TOTAL INCOME EVEN WHEN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TOTAL INCOME WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME. IT IS S ETTLED POSITION OF LAW, THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TOTAL INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 7 1.2] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS 62,50,000/- WHEREAS CORRECT AMOUNT OF INCOME CALCULATED COMES TO RS 33,89,582/ - ONLY. 2] THE ASSESSEE RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER AN D MODIFY THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANOS.451 TO 453/IND/2018 (KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD) : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A} HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,48,16,000/- MADE ON THE BASIS ON CONCRETE MATERIA L EVIDENCES SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH IN VENTORISED IN LPS-10 AND LPS-11? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A} HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH IT WAS DISCUSSED BY DCIT-CENTRAL C IRCLE, INDORE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE DETAILS APP EARING ON THE LOOSE PAPERS LPS-10 AND LPS-11 EXACTLY MATCH WI TH THE DETAILS APPEARING ON THE PAGE 254 OF LPS 2/14 TAKEN FROM THE FILE OF A/3 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH BY EXCISE DEPA RTMENT ON SIGNET GROUP FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE INCOME TAX SEARCH AT THE OFFICE OF M/S SIGNET INDUSTRIES LTD., CONTAININ G DETAILS OF TRANSACTION OF SHRI. PANKAJ KALANI AND PREPARED BY SHRI. MUKESH SANGLA? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A} HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T IN LPS-11, THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN DIFFERENT NAMES WERE ADMITTED AS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE M/S KALANI INDU STRIES PRIVATE LIMITED BY SHRI. DEEPAK KALANI IN HIS STATE MENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 23/12/2011? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A} HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN NO.3 OF LPS-11 REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY SHRI DEEPAK KALAN I IN CASH FROM M/S KALANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED WHI CH ARE [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 8 THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THENAMES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE BELONGED TO T HE ASSESSEE AND EMPLOYEE OF ASSESSEE AND ALSO APPARENT FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 10.03.2016 FROM SHRI MATA KAWALA, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, DEDUCT FROM OR OTHERWISE AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN CONOS.39 TO 41/IND/2019(KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD.): 1. THAT THE LD CIT (A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147. 2. THAT THE LD CIT (AJ FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT REASS ESSMENT WAS INITIATED PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT ION CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THIRD PARTIES WHEREIN CERTAI N DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH ALLEGEDLY BELONGED TO THE PRESENT APPELLANT AND THUS UNDER SUCH FACTS REASSESSMENT COULD HAVE B E DONE ONLY U/S 153C AND NOT U/S 147 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3 THAT THE LD CLT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SEC TION 153 C OVERRIDES SECTION 147/148 AND THUS PROCEEDINGS WHIC H ARE INITIATED PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT SEIZED UNDER SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THIRD PERSONS PREMISES CAN ONLY BE UN DER SECTION 153C AND NOT UNDER SECTION 147/148 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANOS.399/IND/2019 (KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD.): 01. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN REASSES S PROCEEDINGS TO THE CASE UNDER SECTION 148 WITHOUT A PPLYING HIS MIND BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTION OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 02.THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REASSESSED TH E CASE UNDER SECTION 148 ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 9 EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 WERE INITIATED AFTER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 03.THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKIN G ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING OF DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE) WH ICH IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW. 04.THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 148 IS BAD I N LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 05.THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,11,92,098 /- ON ACCOUNT OF CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION AND CONSIDERING IT AS ARTIFICIAL LOSS. 06.THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AN D/ OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITANOS.448/IND/2018 ( M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD .): 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT- (A) OF JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,94,83,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND FINDING RE CORDED BY THE LD. AO PERTAINING TO LPS- 11 WHERE AMOUNT OF TR ANSACTION WERE RECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN MERELY REPRODUCING THE CONTENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IN HIS ORDER WITHOUT DISC USSING THE CASE EITHER ON MERITS OR FACTS AND IGNORING THE FAC T THAT LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REBUTTED THE CONT ENTION OF ASSESSEE IN ITS ENTIRETY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT LD. AO HAS ESTABLISHED LINK BETWEEN SEIZED LOOSE PAPER/INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH AND ESTAB LISHED NEXUS BETWEEN THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSEE A ND [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 10 THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE AT TIME OF THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, WHETHER LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THE ADDITI ON WAS MADE ON THE BASIS PROPER VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND ENQUIRY, AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITIES TO THE A SSESSEE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT - (A) IS JUSTIFYING IN DEL ETING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO. 07/201 2 DATED 16/07/2013 AND PROVISIONS OF ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN CONO.38/IND/2019 ( M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.): 2. THAT THE LD CIT (A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147. 3. THAT THE LD CIT (AJ FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT REASS ESSMENT WAS INITIATED PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT ION CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THIRD PARTIES WHEREIN CERTAI N DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH ALLEGEDLY BELONGED TO THE PRESENT APPELLANT AND THUS UNDER SUCH FACTS REASSESSMENT COULD HAVE B E DONE ONLY U/S 153C AND NOT U/S 147 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3 THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SEC TION 153 C OVERRIDES SECTION 147/148 AND THUS PROCEEDINGS WHIC H ARE INITIATED PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT SEIZED UNDER SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THIRD PERSONS PREMISES CAN ONLY BE UN DER SECTION 153C AND NOT UNDER SECTION 147/148 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS RELATING TO PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT S [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 11 HAD CONCLUDED THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE MADE IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CASE OF M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD. HOWEVER, IN APPEALS RELATED TO SUBSTANTIVE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOV E FACT IN RESPECT OF APPEALS RELATING TO PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSELS FOR RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CIT-DR BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL O N RECORD, SUGGESTING THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MADE IN PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION OF LD. CIT-DR WHICH COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF CONCERNED ASSESSEES, THAT THE DIVER GENT VIEW HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 12 ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAI R PLAY THE PRESENT IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET ASI DE WITH DIRECTION TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS DE NOVO IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW WITH DIRECTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD DECIDE THE APPEALS RELATING TO SUBSTANTIVE PROCEEDINGS AT FIRST AND THEREA FTER THE APPEALS RELATING TO PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE & ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 .0 3.2020. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 13/03/2020 PATEL/PS [IT(SS)A NO.99/IND/2016 AND OTHERS ] [PANKAJ KALANI & OTHERS ] 13 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE