SPHERE, Surat V. Income tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Surat

ITA 491/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1183 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency
• Section: 69C; 250; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.491/SRT/2018 (AY 2009-10) ITA NO.492/ SRT/2018 (AY 2010-11) ITA NO.493/ SRT/2018 (AY 2011-12) ITA NO.494/ SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13) ITA NO.495/ SRT/2018 (AY 2013-14) ITA NO.496/ SRT/2018 (AY 2014-15) (H EARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) SPHERE U-34, POOJA ABHISHEK, OPP. LAW COLLAGE, ATHWALINES, SURAT:395007 PAN: ABAFS 6540 G VS THE ITO WARD-1(3)(5), ROOM NO. 207, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, NR. ADAJAN BRTS STAND, SURAT. APPLICANT /REVENUE RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE ITA NO.486/SRT/2018 (AY 2009-10) ITA NO.487/ SRT/2018 (AY 2010-11) ITA NO.488/ SRT/2018 (AY 2011-12) ITA NO.489/ SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13) ITA NO.490/ SRT/2018 (AY 2013-14) DELUX DIAMONDS, U-49, POOJA ABHISHEK OPP. LAW COLLAGE, ATHWALINES, SURAT-395001. PAN: ABAFS 6540 G VS THE ITO WARD-1(3)(1), ROOM NO. 202, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, NR. ADAJAN BRTS STAND, SURAT. APPLICANT /REVENUE RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE ASSESSEE BY MR. SAPNESH SHETH, CA REVENUE BY MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30/06/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/07/2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER BENCH: 1. THESE ELEVEN APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-2, SURAT DATED 08.05.2018 & 11.05.2018 SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 2 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2014-15 AND 2009-10 TO 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. IN ALL APPEALS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE HAVE RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FACTS IN ALL APPEALS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR EXCEPT VARIATION OF FIGURE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THEREFORE, ALL APPEALS WERE CLUBBED HEARD AND DECIDED BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACT, APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 IN 491/SRT/2018 (SPHERE) IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AS UNADMITTED. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION (U/S.) 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED AO TO BE BAD IN LAW THOUGH THE SAME WAS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE AO HAD NOT SUPPLIED COPIES OF THE MATERIAL RELIED ON BY THE AO, NOR GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS ARE RELIED UPON BY AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION, IN SPITE OF THE SPECIFIC PRAYER MADE BY THE APPELLANT. (4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,677/- (BEING @ 25% OF PURCHASES OF RS. 16,02,705/-) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. (5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER OR DELETE OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING & MANUFACTURING OF GOLD & DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28,456/-. ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE FURNISHED AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ITS TURNOVER OF RS. 71,08,192/-. THE SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 3 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 CASE WAS OF ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 23.03.2016 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES ENTRY FROM THE ENTRY PROVIDER NAMELY RAJENDRA JAIN & GROUP. THE ASSESSEE HAVE SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS.11,95,680/- FROM MAYANK IMPEX AND RS 4,07,025/- FROM NAZAR IMPEX PVT LTD. BOTH THE ENTITY ARE MANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AND PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,49,133/-, BEING 25% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS.16,02,705/- BY TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AS WELL AS ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69C. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 08.05.2018 BY TAKING VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SIX OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DISCUSSING MERIT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR ASSESSEE AND THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 4 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN DELUXE DIAMOND V. ITO IN ITA NO. 1396/AHD/2017 DATED 11.04.2018. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES FIXING HEARING BY LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AS RECORDED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FOR VALID REASONS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION CONTENDED THAT ONE OF THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF ASSESSEE IN M/S DELUXE DIAMONDS (SUPRA) ON IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE HEARD AND RESERVE BY TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER WAS AWAITING. THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER IN ALL APPEALS AFTER REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN CASE IN DELUX DIAMOND FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2018, RESTRICT THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5%. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE @ 25% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOOD CASE ON MERIT AND IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TO RESTORED BACK THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION AND ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT. SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 5 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 5. IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION ON MERITS OF THE CASE THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT REJENDRA JAIN GROUP, SANJAY CHOUDHARY GROUP AND DHARMICHAND JAIN GROUP ARE ENGAGED AND PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF BOGUS PURCHASES, SALE AND UNSECURED LOAN AND THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM TWO/THREE SUCH ENTITIES FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2014-15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES FOR ALL YEARS BE NOT DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND FILED DETAILED REPLY WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE AND MADE ADDITION OF 25% OF THE PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE MADE GENUINE PURCHASES DURING AY 2009-10 TO 2014-15. TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, CONSISTING OF DETAILS OF PURCHASES, CONFIRMATION OF PARTIES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE PURCHASES. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ON SIMILAR CASES THE SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 6 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 VARIOUS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 5%. THEREFORE, THE SIMILAR ORDER MAY BE FOLLOWED. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION : VAMA INTERNATIONAL V. ITO (ITA NO. 7315, 7316 & 7317/MUM/2016 DATED 15.02.2018) SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD. (ITA NO. 1045/M/2016 DATED 13.04.2018) JITENDRA M. KITAVAT HUF (ITA NO. 7047/MUM/2016 DATED 11.04.2018 NITIN GUPTA V. ITO (ITA NO. 2266/DEL/2017 DATED 06.04.2018 MANOJ BEGANI V. ACIT (ITA NO. 932-936/KOL/2017 DATED 15.12.2017 M/S DELUX DIAMONDS (ITA NO. 1396/A/2017 DATED 11.04.2018) J.B. BROTHERS (ITA NO. 3661/AHD/2015 & CO. NO. 22/AHD/2016 DATED 06.04.2018) MAYANK DIAMONDS P. LTD. V. ITO [(ITA NO. 200 OF 2003) (GUJ)] 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE DESPITE AVAILING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES NEITHER FURNISHED HIS SUBMISSIONS OR DETAIL NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE HEARING BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOR ANY COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AS RECORDED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. 7. ON THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT IF THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT ORDER OF SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 7 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN MAY BE FOLLOWED, IT WOULD BE WRONG A PRECEDENT TO CLAIM PARITY WITHOUT APPEARING BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE, FIRSTLY, MUST EXPLAINED THE MERIT OF HIS CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED. THUS, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY OBJECTED FOR FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION OF THOSE FACTS BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY LENIENCY. 8. IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBMISSIONS THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN CASE BENCH IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO DECISION WAS MADE BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON MERIT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE MAY RAISE ALL FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS INCLUDING IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE HEARING ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AS MENTIONED IN PARA 5.1.1OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT ON SIX OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. THE LD CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATION HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN FILING THE DETAILS AND PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING THE MERIT OF THE CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE . SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 8 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT MENTIONED THE REASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WAS SEEKING REPEATED ADJOURNMENT. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE OF THE ASSESSEES GROUP CASE, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT AND ON SIMILAR GROUND IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONCLUDED AND ORDER WAS AWAITED AND ULTIMATELY SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE RESTRICTED TO 5% OF SIMILAR PURCHASES AND THAT THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON THAT GROUND ALONE. WE FIND THAT BEFORE PROCEEDING IN THE MATTER, IN REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXPRESSLY GIVEN REASON OF SUCH REJECTION. 10. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO PASS ORDER ON POINTS OF DETERMINATION (GROUNDS OF APPEALS), DECISION THEREIN ON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250(6) THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AFRESH, ON MERIT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR ASSESSEE IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION SUBMIT THAT IN VARIOUS CASES THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF SIMILAR PURCHASES ON REASONABLE BASIS. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 9 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN DELUX DIAMOND (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD BE WRONG PRECEDENT TO CLAIM PARITY WITHOUT APPEARING BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE, FIRSTLY, MUST EXPLAINED THE MERIT OF HIS CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED. WE FIND CONVINCING FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF ASSESSEE, FIRST TO EXPLAIN THE FACT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTEND AS WELL. THUS THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US. 12. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RESTORED THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL FACTUAL AND LEGAL OBJECTION DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CASE LAWS REFERRED ABOVE AND TO TAKE THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS AND WHEN THE DATE OF HEARING AND TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY AND NOT TO SEEK THE ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS. 13. KEEPING IN VIEW, THAT THE HEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN A FACELESS MANNER ON ITBA PORTAL. THEREFORE, THE SPHERE ITA NOS. 491 TO 496/SRT/2018 10 DELUX DIAMOND ITA NOS. 486 TO 490/SRT/2018 ASSESSEE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO PROVIDE HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER TO MAKE COMMUNICATION WITH HIM OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 14. AS NOTED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAVE RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS, FACTS IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALMOST COMMON EXCEPT VARIATIONS OF DISALLOWANCES OF BOGUS PURCHASES, THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ALL THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 15. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER ANNOUNCED ON 7 TH JULY 2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (DR ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 07/07/2021 RAHUL SHARMA SR. P.S. (ON TOUR) COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT