Ganga Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5954/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 595420114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH SR DR HEARING ON
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 5954/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 GANGA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 12 (1), 39/1386, CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI DELHI PAN: AAACG4180A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. PRAVIN KUMAR, CA. REVENUE BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR. HEARING ON : 31/10/2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE : ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: REOPENING THE CASE U/S 147/148 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE AO REOPENED THE CASE MERELY ON VAGUE INFORMATION WITHO UT HAVING REASON ON RECORD WHICH HAVE LED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT A NOTICE SHOULD BE ISSUED. THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 8 IS UNCALLED AND MAY BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW AS FAR AS REGARDING THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO WERE ON OTHER ITEMS WHICH WAS NOT CO VERED BY ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 2 THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED A ND PROCEEDING U/S 148 DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE AO DEVIATED FROM HIS OWN REASONS FOR REOPENING AND HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY DETERMINING THE NATURE AND QUANTUM OF INCOME WHICH HE HIMSELF IMAGINED TO BE ESCAPED AND FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE OTHER R EASONS WHICH WERE NEVER RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S 148 WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE LAW. ADDITION OF RS.1306000/- FOR CASH DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH IN HAND FROM CASH BOOK. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1306000/- FOR DEPOSITING OF CASH IN THE BANK ACC OUNT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A PPELLANT MAINTAINED CASH BOOK DULY AUDITED UNDER COMPANIES A CT AND THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPA NCIES IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFO RE JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DEPOSITED MONEY IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OUT OF THE EARLIER CASH IN HAND AS PER CASH BOOK AND OU T OF PRIOR WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM ITS REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT THAT CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO MAKE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS.1306000/ - U/S 68 WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1306000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN SUCH RECORDS IN THE RE MAND REPORT SENT BY HIM WHEN THE CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK WITH O THER DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO HIM FOR HIS COMMENTS HOWEVER HE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE IS ALREADY POSSESSING T HOSE ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR ALL THE PAP ERS WHICH WERE SENT FOR HIS COMMENT. ADDITIONS OF RS.2606000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS ENT RIES REFLECTING IN BANK ACCOUNT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2606000/-FOR THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO REGA RDING ALL THE ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 3 CREDITS ENTRIES MENTIONING COMPLETE ADDRESS AND INC OME TAX PARTICULARS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM SUCH CREDIT AP PEARS. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE AO NO WHERE POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN SUCH CONFIRM ATION WHICH WERE AGAIN SENT TO HIM IN HIS REMAND REPORT R ATHER AO CONFIRMED THAT NOTHING IS NEW ALL ARE ALREADY AVAIL ABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO NS FOR CREDITS U/S 68 ON THE ONLY GROUND THAT THE APPELLAN T DID NOT SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PE RSONS FROM WHOM THE CREDITS HAS BEEN RECEIVED WHEREAS HE SPECI FICALLY CALLED FOR BANK STATEMENT OF ALL THE PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR ITR AND BALANCE SHEET WHICH WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEF ORE HIM. THEREFORE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS BY CIT(A) ON THI S MERE REASON IS RESULT OF IGNORANCE FOR TAKING INTO COGNI ZANCE OF THE ALREADY FILED BANK STATEMENT ON RECORD WHILE DRAFT ING THE APPEAL ORDER AND SUCH ADDITIONS DESERVES TO BE DELE TED. NON CONSIDERATION OF CASE LAWS 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW WHEREAS HE DID NOT MENTION THE REASONS WHY HE IS DEVIATING FROM SUCH JURISDICT IONAL CASE LAW. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW WHEREIN HE MENTION ED THE CASE LAW TO SUPPORT HIS CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS THE FAC TS OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 13. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW WHILE TAKING SUPPO RT OF THE CASE LAW ITO VS. SANRAJ ENGG. PVT. LTD 2010-TIOL-56 1-ITAT- DEL IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BANK STATEMENT O F THE LOAN CREDITORS COULD BE EQUATED WITH ESTABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS, IN THE PRESENT CASE BANK STATEMEN TS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE CIT(A) ON RECORD AS CALLED BY HIM. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A PVT. LTD . COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING AND SHARE TRAD ING BUSINESS. IT WAS ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 4 EARNING INCOME FROM INTEREST AND SHARE TRADING BUSI NESS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E A.Y. 2001-02 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.2,611/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY P ROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.39,12,000/- BY THE AO. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. BESIDES, QUESTIONING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY O F NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM I NVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING WAS VAGUE AND GENE RAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH EVEN A PRIMA FACIE VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIE S. THE AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF HIS MIND HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONE OF GROUP COMPANY OF M/S VIK AS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. THROUGH WHOM ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED. THE LD. AR REFERRED PAGE NO. 69 OF THE PB WHEREIN COPY OF THE REASONS H AS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS IN SUPPORT: ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 5 1. CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. ITO 19 1 ITR 662 (SC) 2. SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, WP (C) NO . 6087/2010 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 3. ACIT VS. HYNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD ITA NO. 31 04, 3341 & 3105/DEL/2005 DATED 16.10.2009 4. RAM BAI VS. CIT 103 TAXMAN 121 (SC) 4. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT S PECIFIC INFORMATION WAS THERE WITH THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING INDULGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIES HENCE THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE PART OF TH E AO THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS THUS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF NOT ICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WE FULLY CONCUR W ITH THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT RE ASON TO BELIEVE ON THE PART OF THE AO THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE INVESTIGATION WING HAD INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS ONE OF GROUP COMPANIES OF M/S VIKAS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. MANAGED B Y SHRI AJAY KUMAR ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 6 AND PRADEEP KUMAR THROUGH WHOM ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S WERE PROVIDED. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, A COPY WHEREOF HAS BEEN MA DE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 69 OF THE PB, THE AO AFTER NOTING THE INFORMATION R ECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATING WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOTED THAT HE HAD ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT RECEIVED FROM INVESTIG ATION WING AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD I NTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES. THUS IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO AFTER APPLICATION OF HIS MIND ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTI GATION WING. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT AT THE STAGE O F INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT AN INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO FORM, SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN A COURT OF LAW. WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE AO UNDER WHICH ANY PR UDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO T AX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS THUS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE AC T. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NOS.1, 2 AND 3 ARE THUS REJECTED. ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 7 GROUND NOS. 4, 5 AND 6 6. IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED SUSTAI NING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.13,06,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DE POSIT IN BANK. 7. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED CASH BOOK DULY AUDITED WHEREIN NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF EARLIER CASH IN HA ND AS PER CASH BOOK AND OUT OF PRIOR WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM ITS REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK WITH OTHER DOCUME NTS IN SUPPORT TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAM E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT, A COPY WHER EOF HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO 121 OF THE PB, THE AO HAS ACCE PTED THAT CASH BOOK WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT CASH BOOK WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IT WAS VERY MUCH MADE AVAILABL E TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE REFERRED PAGE NOS. 82 TO 95 OF THE PB WHEREIN A CERTIFIED COPY OF CASH BOOK HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE . THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 8 1. MS. AISHWARYA K. RAI VS. DCIT (2007) 104 ITD 166 (MUM) 2. CIT VS. DEEPAK SETH (2008) 297 ITR 397 (DEL) 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED BY THE AO TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE CASH BOOK ALONG W ITH NECESSARY VOUCHERS AND EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ONLY CASH BOOK WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO REASON WAS ASSIGNED BY THE A SSESSEE AS TO WHY CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND ALSO THAT WHY THE S AME CASH WAS AGAIN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. LIKEWISE NO EVIDENCES OR VOU CHERS REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL AS WELL AS THESE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WAS FURNISHED. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT AUTH ORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT ASSIGNED REASON FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE OP ENING CASH BALANCE IN HAND SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND WITHDRAWAL O F AMOUNT FROM THE BANK. NO DOUBT ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR THEIR NON-REL IANCE ON THE CASH BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF SOME AMOUNT IN HAND AS REFLECTED IN ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 9 THE OPENING CASH BALANCE. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE CASH BOOK ALREADY FILED. GROUND NOS. 4, 5, & 6 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NOS. 7, 8, 9, & 10 10. IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE VA LIDITY OF ADDITION OF RS.26,06,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS APPEARING I N THE BANK ACCOUNT, SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. AR POINTED OU T THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITHOUT EXAMINING THE CONTENTS OF THE CONFIRM ATION FILED BY THE PARTIES HAVE MADE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. HE SU BMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COMPLETE A DDRESSES AND INCOME PARTICULARS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM SUCH CREDITS A PPEARS. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT. BESIDES THEIR CONFIRMATION S, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO HAD SPECIFICA LLY CALLED FOR BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR ITR AND BALANCE SHEET WHICH WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE LD. AR REFERRED PAGE NOS. 102 TO 106 OF THE PB WHERE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES FILED BEF ORE THE AO HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT OUT OF 10 PARTIES THE AO ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 10 HAD ISSUED SUMMONS ONLY TO 7 PARTIES UPON WHOM NOTI CE COULD NOT BE SERVED DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAD TAKEN PLACE IN LAST 8 YEARS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTED WITH THEM IN THE YEAR 2000. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THOU GH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CREDITS OF RS.26,06,000/- BUT IT HAD FURNISHED THEIR CONFIR MATIONS, THEIR PAN, BANK STATEMENTS, RETURNS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT APPE ARS FROM PAGE NO. 10 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CON TENDED THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE HIM. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. HAD ISSUED LETTER DAT ED 8.12.2008 TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE 10 PARTIES FOR THE TRANSACTIONS ON 15.12.2008. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 16.12.2008 IN COMPLIANC E TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 16.12.2008 WITH THE DETAILS, WHICH THE AO REFUSED TO ACCEPT AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO AT TEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON THAT DATE, SINCE THE DATE WAS FIXED ON 15.12.2008. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THOUGH SUBMISSION ALONG WITH CONFIRMATIONS AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WITH REQUEST TO CALL THE PARTIES IN PERSON BY ISSUI NG SUMMONS WAS DISPATCHED TO THE AO BUT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THOSE DOCUMEN TS AND SUBMISSIONS AND PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWING BACK DATED ASSESS MENT ON 16.12.2008. ITA NO.5954/DEL/2010 11 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO MEET END JUSTICE, WE FIND IT A FIT CASE TO SET ASIDE IT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERAT ION ON THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AFTER VERIFYING ITS VERACITY AND AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE GROUND NOS. 7 TO 10 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THE REMAINING GROUND NOS. 11, 12 & 13 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT NEED INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 13. IN RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY 21 /12/2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) (I.C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/12/2012 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR