Shri Sajivansinh B.Chauhan, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITA 603/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 60320514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gross profit estimation; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Non-deduction of tax; Revised return
• Section: 69C; 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI SAJIVANSINH B CHAUHAN, 13-14, BHAGUNAGAR SOCIETY, MORA BHAGAL, RANDER, SURAT, PAN NOABGPC0023J V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-II, SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY APPELLANT SHRI D.K.PARIKH, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 30-04-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 -06-2012 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, SURA T DATED 07-11-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF BOOK RESULT U/S. 145. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,42,541/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ESTIMATION O F CLOSING STOCK OF RS.1,44,200/-. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES OF RS.5,76,788/-. ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 2 5. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE UNDISCLO SED CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.4,02,019/-. 5A. THE AO ENHANCED GP TO 26.45%. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING GP AT MORE THAN 8%. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF TESTING FEES OF RS.1,43,535/-. 7. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,500/- BEING ACCRUED INTEREST. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE PUT UP IN REMAND REPORT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,12,360/- AND THEREAFTER REVISED RETURN WAS FIL ED ON 18-09-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,10,460/-.ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITE D ACCOUNTS AS PER AUDIT REP[ORT IN FORM NO. 3CB AND 3CD. THE CASE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND A NOTICE U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RES PONSE THERETO THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THER E WAS A SHORTFALL OF 8.3% IN THE GROSS PROFIT (GP FOR SHORT) IN THE GP RATIO AS COMPARED TO THE GP RATIO OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO RECORDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS OR EXPLANATION AND RECORDED VARI OUS DEFECTS IN PARA-4.2 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THESE DEFECTS AS R ECORDED IN PARA-4.2, THE AO PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE GP AT RS.31,94,574/- @ 19. 06% OF TOTAL TURNOVER. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND INCOMPLETE AS WELL AS INCORRECT. THEREFORE, THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT WAS INVOKED. THE AO RECORDED THAT AN ADDITION O F RS.16,20,424/- IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR LOW GP, HOWEVER, ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 3 NO ADDITION ON THIS COUNT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- A) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF PURCHASE OF RS.16,42,541/- B) ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT RS .1,44,200/- C) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF PURCHA SE AT RS.5,76,788/- D) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPT AT R S.4,02,019/- E) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.95,191/- F) DISALLOWANCE OF TESTING FEES AT RS.1,43,535/- G) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ACCRUED AT RS.4,500/- THUS, TOTAL DISALLOWANCES OF RS.30,08,774/- WAS MAD E BY ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE, NOW DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS FILED THIS PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE INTER-CONNECTED, THEREFORE A LL THE GROUNDS ARE TAKEN UP EXCEPT GROUNDS NO.1 AND 7 LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS DIRECTED BY THE ASSES SEE NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1 AND 7. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 AND 7 ARE DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. IT IS TRANSPIRED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED TH E GROSS PROFIT (GP) @ 19.06% WHICH WAS AVERAGE RATE OF THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS. THE AO THEREFORE TOOK A VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.16,25,424/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOU NT, IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 4 6. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERR ED IN LAW AND FACT BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON THE PURCHASES. IT IS SUBMITT ED BY THE AR THAT AO HIMSELF HAS NOTICED THAT RETURN OF INCOME ACCOMPANI ED WITH THE REQUISITE AUDIT REPORT AND THE AUDITORS HAVE DULY VERIFIED THE PURC HASES AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS MONT H-WISE JOURNEL ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD. AR THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THEY WERE DESTROYE D IN FLOOD. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED GP @ 19.06% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE GP FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.31,94,574/-. IT IS OBSERVED BY AO THAT AS THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND INCOMPLETE AS WELL AS INCORRECT, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT WAS INVOKED AND IT WAS PR OPOSED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.16,25,425/-. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT PROCEED TO MAKE ADDITION BY ENHANCING GP BUT PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, ESTIMATION OF CLOSING S TOCK, UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPT, DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST, DISALLOWANCE OF TESTING FEE AND ACCRUED INTEREST. S O FAR THE ADDITION OF RS.95,191/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSE IS CONCERNED SA ME WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE OTHER DISALLOWANCE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE COULD NOT PRODUC E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS HIS ENTIRE RECORD WAS DESTROYE D DUE TO FLOOD. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE SUCH AS COPY OF FIR, INSURANCE CLAIM AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE BOOKS WERE DESTROYED DUE TO FLOOD. WE FIND THAT GRO UNDS RELATE TO REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT IS NOT PRESSED BY ASSESSEE THEREFORE, R EJECTION OF BOOK RESULT BY ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 5 THE AO IS NOT DISPUTED. IN TERMS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORREC TNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. FURT HER SECTION 144 MANDATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING ALL RELEVAN T MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE A SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMAT ED THE GP AND TOOK A VIEW THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.16,25,424/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT MAKE SUCH ADDITION IN VIEW OF OTHER DISALLOWANC ES MADE IN THE SAME ORDER. SINCE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC., COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE IT IS CLAIMED THAT THESE ARE DESTROYED IN F LOOD, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NON-EXISTENT BOOKS. THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES IS ON THE BASIS OF HIGH RATIO OF PURCHASE TO CONTACT R ECEIPTS. THE SAME STANDS TAKEN CARE IN GP ADDITION. THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK AND U/S. 69C OF THE ACT ARE ON THIS BASIS THAT THERE IS NO P URCHASE IN SOME MONTHS AND RATIO OF PURCHASE TO GROSS RECEIPT IS HIGH. THE SEC OND ASPECT IS TAKEN CARE IN GP ADDITION. THE ABSENCE OF PURCHASES IN A FEW MONT HS CAN BE FOR THIS REASON THAT BILLS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN A LATER MONT H. THIS CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS & BILLS ETC., WHICH ARE SAI D TO BE DESTROYED IN FLOOD. HENCE, THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AND THIS IS ALSO TAKEN CARE IN GP ADDITION. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DET ERMINED GP RATE AT 19.06% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER AND HE TOOK A VIEW THA T AN ADDITION OF RS.16,25,424/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. AS PER SECT ION 144 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED TOTAL INCO ME AT RS.6,10,460/- + RS.16,25,424/-. THUS, TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED U/S. 14 4 SHOULD BE AT RS.22,35,884/-. ON THE CONTRARY, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.38,21,136/-. SINCE THE AO HAS REJECTE D THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMATED THE GP, THEREFORE, IT WOULD SUBSERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF PROFIT ESTI MATED BY THE AO. IN THIS VIEW OF ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 6 THE MATTER, WE DIRECT AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION T O THE EXTENT OF RS.16,25,424/- AND DELETE ALL OTHER DISALLOWANCES AS DISCUSSED HER EIN BEFORE. HENCE, THE GROUND NOS 2 TO 5 ARE DISPOSED ACCORDINGLY. IN RESP ECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TESTING FEE AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX, AS THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE TESTING FEE WAS REIMBURSED TO THE MAIN CONTENTION THEREFORE NO DEDU CTION OF TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE AMOUNT WAS ESSENTIALLY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES, AS IS EV IDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE TESTING MATERIAL WAS CONDUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT LA BORATORIES AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE M/S KUNAL CONSTRUCTION MADE PAYMENT OF TESTING FEE TO THE GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES AND SUCH EXPENSES WERE SUBS EQUENTLY, REIMBURSED. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) MISINTERPRETED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (V) REGARDING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON TESTING FEE OF RS.143,535/- I HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT I WAS A SUB-CONTRACTOR AND IT W AS A REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF TESTING FEE TO MAIN CONTRACTOR M/S. KUNAL CONST. CO. WHO HAVE PAID THIS FEE TO GOVERNMENT LABORATORY FOR TESTING OF MATERIAL ON BEHALF OF ME BECAUSE WORK WAS CARRIED OUT BY ME. BESIDES M/S. KUNAL CONST. CO. IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO TEST MATERI ALS. IN SHORT I HAVE MADE TESTING FEE TO GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES VIA MAI N CONTRACTOR. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES I WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDU CT TAX U/S. 194J. SO NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF TESTING FEE US. 40(I )(IA) R.W.S. 194J OF THE ACT. BESIDES ENCLOSING HEREWITH CERTIFICATE FRO M M/S. KUNAL CONST. CO. THAT THEY ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT TEST ING FEE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS A SUB-CONTRACTOR AND PAYMENT OF TESTING FEE WAS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO MAIN CONTRACTOR. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE MADE PAYMENT OF TESTING FEE TO THE GOVERNMENT LABOR ATORY THROUGH MAIN CONTRACTOR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE HE HAD ONLY REIMBURSED THE EXPENSES TO M/S KUNAL CONTRACTOR BUT HAD NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES. THI S ASPECT OF MATTER WAS NOT EXAMINED BY LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD GONE ON THE PROPOSIT ION THAT SINCE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE MADE PAYMEN T TO GOVERNMENT ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 7 LABORATORIES THEREFORE, TAX WAS NO DEDUCTIBLE. IN T HIS VIEW OF MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING T HE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MAIN CONTRACTOR AS REIMBURSEME NT EXPENSES OF TESTING FEE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. SO FAR ADDITION OF RS.4,02,019/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPT IS CONCERNED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AS UNDER:- (IV) REGARDING DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPT OF RS.268,931 /- IN EX. ENG.(R & B) DIV. & RS.133988/- EX.ENG. NATIONAL HIGHWAY I HAVE TO SUBM IT THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT CHEQUE DT. 31-03-05 WE RECEIVED BY ME IN NEXT AST. YEAR 06-07 AMOUNT OF WHICH WERE PERTAINS TO AB OVE DIFFERENCE RECEIPT AND THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT HERE I MADE A BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND THIS RECEIPTS A RE SHOWN IN THE ASST. YEAR 2006-07 DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER EX.ENG.(R &B) DIV. - ACTUAL RECEIPT OF RS.2,176,5 62 FOR A.Y. 06-07 AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AS AGAINST RECEIPTS OF RS.23 61162/- SHOWN- EXCESS BY 184600/-. EX.ENG. NATIONAL HIGHWAY. ACTUAL RECEIPT OF RS.2,15 6,272/- AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AS AGAINST RECEIPTS OF RS.2,307,6 74/- SHOWN IN A.Y 06-07 EXCESS SHOWN BY RS.151,402/- FROM ABOVE FACT YOUR GOODSELF WILL SEE THAT ON ACCO UNT OF BONA FIDE MISTAKE I HAVE SEEN RECEIPT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION IN NEXT A. YEAR AND STILL SOME DIFFERENCES IN RECEIPTS ON ACCO UNT OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE MADE DEDUCTION OF TESTING FEE AND OTHER R ELEVANT DEDUCTION FROM MY BILL AMOUNT AND HENCE. THE SIMILAR SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A S WELL AS BEFORE US. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT A SUITABLE DIRECTION BE GI VEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER SUCH RECEIPTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR. WE ARE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WOULD SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF SUITABLE DIR ECTION IS GIVEN TO THE AO. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHE R EXCESS RECEIPT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN NEXT YEAR, IF SO, THE RELIEF IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW MAY BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF ASSE SSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.603/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. SAJIVANSISNH B CHAUHAN V. ACIT CIR-II, SRT PAGE 8 10. NEXT GROUND RELATES TO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HOWEVER, FROM THE RECORD IT TRANSPIRED THAT ASSESSE E WAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP - 15/06/2012 ()* + ,- ,- ,- ,- ../ ../ ../ ../ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. *.3 , ,4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ,4- / CIT (A) 5. /67 ...3, , .3 , ()* / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79: ;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ,- , =/ ( > , .3 , ()* +