Shri Shailesh Ranchhodbhai Shah, Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand

ITA 658/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8025 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N M DARJI AR SHRI V K SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NOS. ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 653/AHD/2015 2004-05 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH B-6, DHANLAXMI COMPLEX, OPP. RELIANCE MALL LAMBHVAL ROAD, ANAND-388 001 PAN:BCXPS1230 C THE ITO WARD-4 ANAND 2. 654/AHD/2015 2005-06 -ASSESSEE -REVENUE 3. 655/AHD/2015 2006-07 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 4. 656/AHD/2015 2007-08 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 5. 657/AHD/2015 2004-05 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 6. 658/AHD/2015 2005-06 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 7. 659/AHD/2015 2006-07 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 8. 660/AHD/2015 2007-08 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 9. 1182/AHD/2015 2004-05 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 10. 1183/AHD/2015 2005-06 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 11. 1184/AHD/2015 2006-07 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- 12. 1185/AHD/2015 2007-08 ASSESSEE- REVENUE- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.M. DARJI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR !'#$ / DATE OF HEARING 04/12/2017 %&'#$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/12 /2017 ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 2 - / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 05/01/2015, 22/12/2014 AN D 26/02/2015 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER S.143(3) R .W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS 'THE ACT') DATED 26/12/2011 AND PENALTY ORDERS UNDER S.271(1)(B)/271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 29/06/2012 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2004-05 TO 2007- 08. 2. SINCE COMMON AND INTERCONNECTED ISSUES ARE INVOL VED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FIRST BUNCH OF FOUR AP PEALS I.E. ITA NOS.653 TO 656/AHD/2015 ARE BROADLY SIMILAR. ACCO RDINGLY, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE BEING GOUPED TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION PURPOSES. 4. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE ITA NO.653/AHD/2015 AY 2004-05. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER (EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.653/AHD/2015):- ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 3 - 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS, IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S.144 RWS 147 OF THE ACT DTD. 26/12/2011 PA SSED BY THE LD.AO AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ANY OF T HE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S.148 AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AS STA TED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.AO HAS THEREFORE NOT ASSUMED THE JURISDICTIO N U/S.147 OF THE ACT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.144 RWS 147 OF THE A CT IS THEREFORE VOID AB INITIO. 2) THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING TH E REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.638000/- RELYING ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE POLICE INSPECTOR LCB ANAND BEING IN THE NATURE OF BANK STATEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER CASE LAWS AND THEREFORE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO 1 AND 2 ABOVE (RESERVING THE RIGHT TO EMPHASIS IN BOTH THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO 1 AND 2 ABOVE) THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN THE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE AO ON THE PRI NCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SERVE D ANY STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL IN VERY FIRST APPEAL HEARING FIXED ON 05/01/2015. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE THRESHOLD RAISED ISSUE REGARDING JU RISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S.144 RWS 147 OF THE ACT FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ON THE GROUND T HAT NOTICE ISSUED ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 4 - UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS SIMILARLY, SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT ORDERS APPEALED AGAINST. THE LD.AR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED TH AT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO UNDER S.144 RWS 147 OF THE ACT ARE VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICES. 6. TO SUPPORT THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICES UNDER S. 148 AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE LD.AR ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO AN APPLICA TION MADE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 AND PLEADED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF AF FIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 09/09/2017; ORIGINAL DECREE OF THE FAMILY COU RT DATED 3107/2013 ETC. MAKING REFERENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 09/09/ 2017, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT STAYING AT THE ADDRESS (G-2, ANSUL APARTMENT, V.V.NAGAR, ANAND) WHERE THE NOTICES UNDE R S.148 AND 142(1) WERE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED. THE NOTICE ISSUED AT THE AFORESAID ADDRESS WAS PROBABLY RECEIVED BY EX-WIFE BINDU WHO IS NOT THE A UTHORIZED PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR ACCORDINGLY SUBM ITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID AFFIDAVIT AND THE DIVORCE DECREE IN T HIS REGARD, THE STATUTORY NOTICE FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.148 A ND CONSEQUENT NOTICE UNDER S.142(1) WAS ISSUED TO A WRONG AND UNAUTHORIZ ED PERSON AND ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 5 - THEREFORE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE DEVOID OF LEGI TIMACY. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IMPUGNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN AP PEAL AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDERS PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(B) AND 271(1)( C) FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 WERE GIVEN TO HIM 26/02/ 2013. CONSEQUENT THERETO, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THEREAFTER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY ORDERS UNDER S.271 (1)(B) & 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED AT THE THRESHOLD. 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPOSED T HE WRONGFUL SERVICES OF STATUTORY NOTICES ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN AB LE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY OTHER ADDRESS OTHER THAN ANSUL APARTMENT ADDRES S (WHERE THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED) WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD OF THE DEPAR TMENT. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDIN G ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT AND PROCEEDED IN A TIME-BOUND MANNER AND ARE FETTERED BY BAR OF LIMITA TION AS PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE. THE NOTICE UNDER S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE SAME ADDRESS (ANSUL APARTMENT) IS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE BANK ALSO FROM WHERE THE FACTS OF UNUSUAL CASH DEPOSITS WAS DEDUCED. SIMI LARLY, A NOTICE UNDER S.142(1) WAS ALSO SERVED AT THE ADDRESS NOTIFIED TO REVENUE COUPLED WITH INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE AS PRESCRIBED IN LAW. THE ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 6 - LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY IN FORMATION WHATSOEVER ON SOME NEW ADDRESS AS CLAIMED, THE AO WAS LEFT WIT H NO CHOICE BUT TO ISSUE THE NOTICES AT THE ADDRESS AS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF ASSESSEE TO BRING CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT AND NONE OTHER. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BLAME THE R EVENUE FOR MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM AND CANNOT BE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WR ONG COMMITTED BY HIMSELF. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO FAULT CAN B E FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REVENUE. THE LD.DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FI NDINGS ON MERITS TOWARDS LACK OF EXPLANATION ON CASH DEPOSITS. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATING FACTS TOWARDS CHANGE IN ADDRESS ALONG WITH COURT OR DER TOWARDS DIVORCE DECREE WITH HIS WIFE. IN ORDER TO WEIGH THE ADMISS IBILITY OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WE REFER TO THE INCOME-TAX PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) ON 16/07/2013. THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 05/01/2015. THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIVY TO THE RELEVANT ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES SUCH AS COURT ORDER/DECREE ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS TO WHY THESE ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 7 - EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). LIKEWISE, THE AFFIDAVIT ONLY DWELL UPON THE FACTS WHICH WERE WELL WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE CIT(A). APPARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING SUFFIC IENT CAUSE ON RECORD TO WARRANT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE PR E-REQUISITES FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE THUS NOT SATI SFIED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE REJECTED. 9. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT NOTICE UNDER S.148 AND S.142(1) WAS NOT ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE PER SE AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH NO TICE ARE VOID AB INITIO . IN THIS REGARD, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE STATUTORY PO SITION WHEREBY NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE IS SUED FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ADMITTEDLY ISSUED NOTICE AT THE ADDRESS AVAILAB LE AS PER PAN RECORDS AND ADDRESS REGISTERED WITH THE BANK BY ASSESSEE HI MSELF. THEREFORE, THE ADDRESS AT WHICH NOTICE UNDER S.148 AND 142(1) HAS BEEN ISSUED CANNOT BE LABELED AS AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS. THE NOTICE HAS BEE N CORRECTLY ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED. THE FAMILY DISPUTE WHICH PRE VENTED THE ASSESSEE TO GET HOLD OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE IS OF NO CONSEQ UENCE TO DETERMINE THE BONAFIDES OF ACTIONS OF REVENUE. ONCE A NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE RIGHT ADDRESS, THE AO STANDS ABSOLVED OF ANY FURTHE R DUTY IN THIS REGARD. ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD LEAD TO SERIOUS RAMI FICATIONS IN VIEW OF ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 8 - BAR OF LIMITATION FOR ISSUANCE/SERVICE OF VARIOUS S TATUTORY NOTICES. AN ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HI S OWN LAPSE IN NOT INFORMING THE NEW ADDRESS AND THUS CANNOT BE PERMIT TED TO TAKE A PLEA ABOUT NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR SAME HAVING BEEN SE RVED AT NOTIFIED ADDRESS. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDERS.148 O F THE ACT. A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.142(1) WAS NOT ONLY SERVED AT THE A DDRESS SO PROVIDED BUT WAS ALSO INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AFFIXTU RE IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH T HE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS FAILED TO APPEAR THE AO . THE AO HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY INVOKED SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AN D PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS JURISDICTION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S.1 47/148 AS NULL AND VOID. 10. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELETION OF ADDITIONS ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DISPUTE WITH HIS WIFE AND CONTINUOUS JEOPARDY PREVAILED UPON HI M AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ETC. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT IN JAIL AND WENT THROUGH SERIOUS TURMOIL IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE. THEREFORE, IN OUR ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 9 - CONSIDERED VIEW, SUFFICIENT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE S EXIST TO WARRANT A FRESH OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HAS CASE TOWARDS SOURC E OF CASH DEPOSITS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT EXPEDI ENT TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON MERITS AND RESTORE IT BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS AFTER GRANT ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE AO. IN THE RESUL T, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 11. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 653/AHD/2015FOR AY 2004-05 IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 12. WE NEXT TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN I TA NOS.654, 655 AND 656/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESP ECTIVELY. BOTH THE SIDES CONSENTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVO LVED IN THESE THREE APPEALS TOO. THUS, FOR PARITY OF REASONS NOTED ABOV E, OUR VIEW IN ITA NO.653/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2004-05 ABOVE SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS CAPTIONED ABOVE. AS A RESULT, ALL T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.654, 655 & 656/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2005-06, 2006- 07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. WE NOW TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA N OS.657, 658, 659 & 660/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-0 7 & 2007-08 ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 10 - RESPECTIVELY PERTAINING TO IMPOSITION PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 14. IN VIEW OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR COMP LIANCE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MITIGATING CIRCUMS TANCES EXIST FOR CANCELLATION OF PENALTY. RESULTANTLY, PENALTY ORDE RS PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(B) APPEALED AGAINST IN AFORESAID ITA NOS.6 57, 658, 659 & 660/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 ARE QUASHED AND PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(B) IS CANCELLED IN ALL THE A PPEALS. 15. WE NOW TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO S.1182, 1183, 1184 & 1185/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006 -07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY WHICH RELATE TO CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EMANATING FROM RESPECTIVE AS SESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN ITA NOS.653, 654, 655 AND 656/AHD/2015(SU PRA). SINCE THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARISING IN THE RESPE CTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F CIT(A), THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED I N ALL THESE APPEALS. A FRESH LIBERTY IS HOWEVER GRANTED TO THE AO TO EXE RCISE ITS DISCRETION TOWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ISSUES INVOLVE D IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON ADJUDI CATION OF THE ISSUES ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 11 - INVOLVED IN QUANTUM ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CANCELLATION OF PENALTY IN THE IMPUGNE D APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1 182, 1183, 1184 & 1185/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2 007-08 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE COMBINED RESULT :- (I) ITA NOS.653 TO 656/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05 TO 2007 -08 ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (II) ITA NOS.657 TO 660/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05 TO 2007 -08 ARE ALLOWED. (III) ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 FOR AYS 2004-05 TO 20 07-08 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04 / 1 2 /201 7 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/ 12 /2017 -..!,.!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.653 TO 660/AHD/2015 & ITA NOS.1182 TO 1185/AHD/2015 SHAILESH RANCHHODBHAI SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 - 12 - ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234$ 5$ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5$ ( . ) / THE CIT(A)-4, VADODARA 5. 67$!34 , ..34' , .2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 16$$ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..4.12.2017(DICTATION-PAD 27- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 5.12.2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.5.12.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.12.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER