Shri Pradip Shantilal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 455/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0926 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P D SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 148; 132; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D, AM. ITA NO.455- 457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR: 1993-94 TO 1995-96 PRADIP SHANTILAL SHAH, MEHTA LODA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 105, SAKAR-1, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN CNZPS 4732B APPELLANT BY SHRI P. D. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 8/8/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/8/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE THREE APPEALS FOR ASST. YEAR 1993-94 TO 1995 -96 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE I.E. 6.12.2010 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XVI/DCIT.CIR.3/403/09-10, NO. CIT( A)-XVI/DCIT. CIR.3/429/09-10, & NO.CIT(A)-XVI/DCIT.CIR.3/402/09- 10. 2. ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE I. T. A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), FOR ALL THE THREE ASST. YEARS WERE FRAMED ON 21.12.2009 BY DCIT, CIRCLE-3, AHMEDABAD. AS ALL THE THREE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES RAISED I N THESE APPEALS ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 2 ARE SIMILAR, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.455/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. Y EAR 1993-94 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS BY NOT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 254 OF THE ACT, AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SAID LEARNED AO IS (A) AGAINST THE DIRECTION S OF THE HON'BLE IT AT (B) AGAINST THE LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION (C) AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND (D) FACTS OF THE C ASE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO SHOULD BE QUASHED AN D ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN SHOULD BE DELETED IN FULL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.L OF APPEAL:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,21,49,743/- AND THEREFORE THE LEA RNED AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. 3. THAT THE CORRECT TAX AND INTEREST THEREON UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B SHALL BE CALCULATED. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.148 VIDE LETTER DATED 30 TH MARCH 2001, INTEREST U/S.234A OF THE ACT IS NOT CHARGEABLE. ACC ORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AO IS TO BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S.234A AND RECALCULATE THE INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS BY CONFIRMING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT AND TH EREFORE THE LEARNED AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS INITIATED U/S. 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING . SEARCH U/S 132 ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 3 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 28.3.1995 & 29.3.1995 . ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 21.3 .2002 AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 29.3.2001. INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,21,49,743/-. PART RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY LD. CI T(A). IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE AND TH E MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE F RESH ASSESSMENT. IN COMPLIANCE OF TRIBUNALS DECISION NOTICES U/S 143(2 ) WERE ISSUED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPON D. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSE SSMENT ON THE SAME LINE AS IT WAS DONE IN THE FIRST ROUND AND ASS ESSED THE INCOME AT RS.1,21,49,743/-. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGAT ION APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A). 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. ARS MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT COPY OF REASONS RECOR DED FOR THE RE- ASSESSMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 08/12/2009 VIDE LETTER D ATED 4.12.2009 FIXING THE HEARING ON 14.12.2009. LD. AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER, REITERATING THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:- DATE OF EVENTS NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 SEARCH DATE 28/3/1995 & 29/3/1995 (FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 8/8/1 995) 2 RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 30/06/1993 3 NOTICE U/S. 148 SERVED ON 29/03/2001 4 RETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 30/03/2001 5 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 148 RWS L44(FIRST ORDER) 21/03/2002 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 148RWS SERVED ON 20/04/2002 7 FIRST ROUND ITAT ORDER DATED 28/03/2008 8 FIRST NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED ON AFTER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT 30/01/2009 (WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF THE REASONS F OR THE REASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BL E ITAT) 9 COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE REASSESSMENT RECEIVED ON VIDE LETTER DATED 4-12- 2009 08/12/2009 WITH HEARING ON 14/12/2009 ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 4 10 OBJECTION AGAINST REASONS FILED ON 09/12/2009 11 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 254 PASSED ON 21/12/2009 GROUND NO.1 1. ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT IS TI ME BARRED AS IT HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 20/4/2002 I.E. NOT BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2002. 2. THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30/6/1993 HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THE SAID COURSE OF ACTION IS BAD IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- (A) TRUSTEES OF H.E.H. THE NIZAM'S SUPPLEMENTAL FAM ILY TRUST VS CIT 242 ITR381(SC) (B) CIT V P KRISHNAKUTTY MENON 181 ITR 237(KER) (C) KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES VS ASST.DIR (2007) 292 ITR 49(DEL). GROUND NO.2-ADDITION OF RS.1,21 ) 49,743/-(RS.1,17,64,743+RS.3,85,000) 1. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131, DET AILS OF SOURCES WERE EXPLAINED. REFER PARA NO 3 ON PAGE NO.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT O RDER. HERE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE LYING WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 2. THAT THE F.D.O.D ACCOUNT NO.98 WITH SAGAR CO-OP. BANK IS IN THE NAME OF JASRAJ PRADIPKUMAR AND THEREFORE ITS AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDE D IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR ABOVE SUBMISSION, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,85,000/- OF CASH DEPOSIT IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.3,85,000/- AND WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO TOTAL ASS ESSED INCOME OF RS.3,85,000/- {REFER FIRST PAGE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S ECTION 143(3)RWS254}. IN VIEW OF THE SAID THE FACT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO I S AGAINST THE FACT AND IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT NO ACCOUNTS ARE KEPT. EVIDENT FROM THE 1ST PAGE OF THE ASSTT.ORDER. YOUR HONORS ARE REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE SUBMISSION WHILE DE CIDING THE APPEAL AND OBLIGE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 5 GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO.1 IS RELATING TO LEGALITY OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U /S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT, GROUND NO.2 IS ON MERIT, GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST IMPOSITION OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT AND GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE OF GENERAL IN NATURE. ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 5 8. WE WILL FIRST ADJUDICATE GROUND NO.1. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PUT F ORWARD HIS SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE REV ENUE. LD. ARS MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT HON. TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR SETING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2008 AND IT WAS ALMOST AFTER 20 MONTHS I.E. IN DECEMBER, 2009 THAT REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMEN T WERE PROVIDED. ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 14.12.2009 LD. AR OF ASSESSEE WENT TO THE CHAMBER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WAS UN ABLE TO MEET HIM AS AT THE GIVEN POINT OF TIME AS ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO SECOND ATTEMPT BEI NG MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY. 9. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A DETA ILED FINDING ABOUT THE LETHARGIC ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NO T ACCEPTING THE NOTICES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND ALSO NOT SHOWING A NY INTEREST TO FURNISH INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GET THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED AND WHILE DECIDING SO LD. CIT( A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 2.3.1 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT COPIES O F REASON WAS GIVEN TO IT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ILLEGIBLE AND UNSIGNED. THE REQUIREME NT OF LAW IS TO SERVE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS STATED THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WERE ISSUED ON 30/01/ 2009, 04/02/2009 AND 09/11/2009 TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS SET ASIDE BY THE HONORABLE IT AT BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE NOTICES, AND THEREFORE VIDE LETTER DATED 04/12/2009 A SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS ISSUED FIX ING THE HEARING FOR 14/12/2009. THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER IS REPRODUCED BY THE AO ON PAGE 2 OF THE ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 02/12/2010 THAT VIDE THE LETTER DATED 04/12/2009 TH E AO HAD GIVEN A COPY OF ILLEGIBLE AND UNSIGNED REASONS. THAT THE APPELLANT IS ABSOLUTELY NONCOOPERATIVE IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO T HE EARLIER NOTICES OR EVEN TO THE LETTER WITH WHICH THE COPY OF THE REASONS WAS GIVEN THE APPELLANT INSTEAD OF ATTENDING THE PROCEEDING*; WROTE A LETTER TO THE AO ASKING FOR REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. INSTEAD OF ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND SEEKING A BETTER COPY OF THE REASONS, THE APPELLANT RESPOND ED ONLY BY WRITING A LETTER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN TH E PROCEEDINGS. 2.3.2 THEREAFTER, THE AO WROTE A FINAL LETTER/NOTIC E ON 15/12/2009, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN PARA-TWO OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ON PAGE 2. IN THIS LETTER DATED 15/12/2009 ALSO THE AO HAS REPROD UCED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT SEPARATELY FOR BOTH THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 COMMON FOR BOTH THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. THE HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 21/12/2009. SIMULTANEOUSLY, T HE AO DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR TO SERVE THE NOTICE. THE NONCOMPLIANT ATTITUDE OF T HE APPELLANT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR DATED 16/12/2009 WHICH IS QUOTED BY THE AO IN PARA- THREE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND IS REPRODUCED HE RE UNDER:- 'AS DIRECTED, I HAVE VISITED AT 931-A, RANCH BUNGLO W, RAMNAGAR, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD FOR SERVICE OF LETTER FIXING HEARING ON 2 1/12/2009 AT 11.00 A.M.; ADDRESSED TO SHRI PRADIP SHANTILAL SHAH FOR A REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND 1995-96, WHILE SERVING THE LETTER ON THE SAID PREMISES, SHRI SHANTIIAL SHAH WAS PRESENT AND REQUE STED TO ACCEPT THE LETTER TODAY AT 4.32 PM. SHRI SHANTILAL SHAH HAS REFUSED T O ACCEPT THE LETTER. HENCE, IF APPROVED THE LETTER MAY BE SERVED TO SPEED POST AD. SUBMITTED'. 2.3.3 THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY SPEED POST AD WHICH WAS ALSO RETURNED UNSERVED QN 18/12/2009 WITH POSTA L REMARKS AND DATED 17/12/2009 AS 'REFUSED'. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, TH E AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE MOOD TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD AS GRANTED BY THE HONORABLE IT AT. 2.3.4 F : ROM THE ABOVE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE REASONS WER E SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT BY THE LETTER DATED 04/12/2009 AND THEREA FTER AGAIN BY THE LETTER DATED 15/12/2009 BECAUSE THE REFUSAL OF SERVICE AMOUNTS T O SERVICE AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW. THE APPELLANT IS NO 1 , INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MATTER IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT WHO HAS NO T ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO DESPITE SO MANY ATTEMPTS MADE BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE HONORABL E ITAT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IS TOTALLY WRONG AND MISCHIEVOUS. THE APPELLANT HAS IN FACT NOT COOPERATED IN THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE ITA T TO THE APPELLANT FOR A FRESH HEARING THEREBY WASTING THE TIME OF THE HONORABLE ITAT THE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 7 2.3.5 FURTHER, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RE ASONS RECORDED IT IS CLEAR THAT NOT FILING OF RETURN IS ONLY ONE OF THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HAD FILE D RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139. THE APPELLANT IS THEREFOR E TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE. THE MAJOR REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO ARE THAT DURING THE S EARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPERAT ED BANK ACCOUNTS FD/OD ACCOUNT NUMBER 98 WITH SAGAR COOPERATIVE BANK DHAN LAKSHMI MARKET AND ACCOUNT NUMBER 62982, 63649 TO 63654 WITH CENTRAL B ANK OF INDIA AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEPOSITED HUGE AMOUNT IN BANK ACC OUNT NUMBER FOR 42053 WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE S HARE APPLICATION FOR VARIOUS ISSUES IN DIFFERENT NAMES FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS MATERIAL! FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS VALID BECAUSE IN NOTICE ISSUED IS ALSO VALID. 2.3.6 IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. FROM GOING THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS HAPPENED IN THE SECOND ROUND POST TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WE OBSERVE THAT BOTH THE SIDES HAVE TRIED TO PROLONG THE ISSUE. ON ONE HAND, REVENUE WHICH CAME INTO ACTION ALMOST AFTER THE LAPSE OF A YEAR OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E QUICK ACTION INCLUDING SENDING OF INSPECTOR AS WELL AS ISSUING O F VARIOUS NOTICES WHICH OCCURRED IN THE YEAR 2009, COULD HAVE BEEN IN ITIATED LITTLE EARLIER SO AS TO GIVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESS EE TO PUT FORTH HIS SUBMISSIONS. 10.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN LET HARGIC ATTITUDE BY NOT KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAKING HIS CASE AT AN EARLY DATE AND FURTHER ON THE GIVEN DATE WHEN HE COULD NOT FIND ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS CHAMBER, HE COULD HAVE VIS ITED AGAIN AFTER FEW HOURS OR IN THE COMING DAYS OR AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE FURNISHED ALL ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 8 THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BUT NO THING HAS BEEN MOVED FROM HIS SIDE OF ASSESSEE ALSO. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPY OF SOME DOCUMENTS THAT TOO UNSIGNED AND DID NOT TRIED EFFICIENTLY TO PUT UP HI S CASE ALONG WITH THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS RAISED BY ASSESSE E IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMS TANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ASSESSEE DESERVES A LA ST CHANCE TO GO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE ALL THE ISSUES OF THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE S AME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE AND EARLY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS DULY SIGNED INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENTS, SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR SHARES AND OTHER RELATED MATERIAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT T HIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. AS IN THE OTHER TWO APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 456 & 4 57/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96 THE ISSUES ARE SIMI LAR, THEY ARE ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDIN G AFRESH AND AS PER OUR DIRECTION GIVEN IN THE ABOVE APPEAL NO. ITA NO .455/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 1993-94. THESE ARE ALSO ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 455-457/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 1993-94-1995-96 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 10/8/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 09/08/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 10/08/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 10/8/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: