M/s. Meridian Telesoft Limited, Ahmedabad V. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 697/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5259 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: INSERTINGTHE
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“B”BENCH BEFORE:SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBERAND SHRIT.R.SENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 (AssessmentYear:2013-14) M/sMeridianTelesoft Limited. 132,Sarap,OppNavjivan Press,AshramRoad, Ahmedabad V/SAssistantCommissionerof IncomeTax Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Appellant)(Respondent) PAN:AABCM4067D Appellantby:ShriTusharHemani,Advocate Respondentby:Ms.SaumyaPandey,Sr.D.R. आदेश/ORDER Dateofhearing:23-08-2023 DateofPronouncement:20-11-2023 PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUTANTMEMBER: Theappealhasbeenpreferredbytheassesseeagainsttheorderofthe CommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-2,Ahmedabad(‘CIT(A)’inshort)dated 02.11.2017arisingintheassessmentorderdated28.03.2016passedbythe AssessingOfficer(AO)unders.143(3)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(theAct) concerningA.Y2013-14. ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 2 2.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredbothinlawandonthefactsofthecaseinconfirming theactionofAOoftreatingshareapplicationmoneyasunexplainedcashcreditsand makinganadditionofRs.13,00,000/-u/s.68r.w.s.115BBEoftheAct. 2.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredbothinlawandonthefactsofthecaseinconfirming thedisallowanceofinterestexpensestotheextentofRs.2.04,991/-u/s.40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194AoftheAct. 3.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredbothinlawandonthefactsofthecaseinconfirming thedisallowanceofcostofimprovementofRs.1,19,00,000/-fromtheLongTermCapital LossresultinginanadditionofLongTermCapitalGainofRs.1,14,02.391/-. 4.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredbothinlawandonthefactsofthecaseinconfirming thedisallowanceofcostofimprovementdespitethefactthatAOdidnotgivetheappellant opportunitytocross-examinesub-contractorwhosestatementwasreliedupontomakethe disallowance. 5.Boththelowerauthoritieshavepassedtheorderswithoutproperlyappreciating thefactsandtheyfurthererredingrosslyignoringvarioussubmissions,explanationsand informationsubmittedbytheappellantfromtimetotimewhichoughttohavebeen consideredbeforepassingtheimpugnedorder.Thisactionoftheconsideredbefore passingtheimpugnedorder.Thisactionofthelowerauthoritiesisinclearbreachoflaw andPrinciplesofNaturalJusticeandthereforedeservestobequashed. 6.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsofthecaseinconfirmingaction oftheId.AOinlevyinginterestu/s234/B/CoftheAct. 7.ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsofthecaseinconfirmingaction oftheId.AOininitiatingpenaltyu/s271(1)(c)oftheAct. Theappellantcravesleavetoadd,amend,alter,edit,delete,modifyorchangealloranyof thegroundsofappealatthetimeoforbeforethehearingoftheappeal. 3.ThefirstissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionmadebytheAObytreatingthereceiptofsharecapitalas unexplainedcashcreditundersection68oftheAct. 4.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassessee,apubliclimitedcompany,is engagedinthebusinessofmassSMSservicesandsoftwaredevelopment.The ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 3 assesseeduringtheyearunderconsiderationreceivedshareapplicationmoneyfor Rs.13lacsfrom3personsdetailedasunder: 1.ShriHarbanSinghRs.2Lakh 2.Smt.SudeshKewalKrsihnaRs.1Lakh 3.ShriPromodBothraRs.10Lakh 4.1Duringtheassessmentproceedings,theassesseefailedtosubmitnecessary documentsasrequiredbytheAOestablishingtheidentity,creditworthinessofthe partiesandgenuinenessofthetransactions.Therefore,theAOtreatedthecredit ofshareapplicationmoneyforRs.13,00,000/-asunexplainedcashcreditunder section68oftheActandaddedthesametothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 5.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The assesseebeforethelearnedCIT(A)furnishednames,addresses,PANofthe shareholders,theirconfirmationletters,andthecopyofthesharecertificateissued totheshareholders.Theassesseeaccordinglyclaimedthatitdischargedtheonus castundersection68oftheActbyfurnishingnecessarydetailsbyestablishingthe identityoftheinvestors,theircreditworthinessandthegenuinenessofinvestment madebythem.However,thelearnedCIT(A)confirmedtheadditionmadebythe AObyobservingasunder: 4.3.Ihavecarefullyconsideredthefactsofthecase,assessmentorderandcontentionof theappellant.TheAssessingOfficerhasmadetheadditionofRs.13.00.000/-beingshare applicationmoneyfromShriHarbansSinghofRs.2.00.000/-,ShriSureshKewalKrishnaof Rs.1,00,000/-andShriPramodBothraofRs.10,00,000/-.AstheappellantbeforetheAO despitegivingsufficientopportunitydidnotfurnishevidencetoestablishtheidentity, genuinenessandcreditworthinessofsnareapplicationtheAOmadetheadditionof Rs.13,00,000/-u/s.68oftheAct.Duringtheappellateproceedings,theappellant submittedPANNumber,addressandsharecertificateinsupportoftheclaimofshare applicationmoney.However,appellantevenatthisstagefailedtosubmitbankstatement, incometaxreturnandconfirmationofthecreditorfromwhomshareapplicationhavebeen received.Inviewoftheabove,appellanthasnotdischargeditsonusofprovingcapacity andgenuinenessofthecreditors.Inviewoftheabove,theadditionmadebytheAOis confirmed. ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 4 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 7.ThelearnedARbeforeusfurnishedpaperbookrunningfrompages1to98 andsubmittedthatallthedetailsofthesharesubscriberssuchasname,dateof advance,amount,sharecertificatesandconfirmationwerefiledandthereforethe onuscastundersection68oftheActwasdulydischargedbytheassessee. AccordingtothelearnedAR,noadditioninsuchfactsandcircumstancesis warrantedundersection68oftheAct. 8.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderoftheauthoritiesbelow. 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Theissueonhandhasbearingontheprovisionsof section68oftheAct.Theprovisionsofsection68oftheActsuggestthatifthere isanysumcreditedinthebooksofaccountmaintainedforanypreviousyearthen theassesseeisrequiredtoofferaproperandreasonableexplanationregarding thenatureandsourcesofsuchcredittothesatisfactionoftheAO.Thus,the primaryonuslieswiththeassesseetoexplainthesourceofcreditinthebooks. Overtheperiod,theHon’bleCourtshavelaiddownthattheassesseetodischarge itsonusisrequiredtofurnishevidencewithrespecttoidentityofthecreditor, genuinenessoftransactionandcreditworthinessofthecreditor.Iftheassessee failstodischargetheprimaryonuscastortheexplanationandevidencesubmitted bytheassesseewasnotfoundsatisfactorybytheAO,thenthesumcreditedinthe booksshallbedeemedasincomeoftheassessee.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtin caseofCITvs.P.Mohanakalareportedin291ITR278whiledealingwithscopeof provisionsofthesection68oftheActheldthat“theopinionoftheAOthatthe ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 5 explanationfurnishedbytheassesseeasnotsatisfactoryisrequiredtobebased onproperappreciationofmaterialandotherattendingcircumstancesavailableon record.TheopinionoftheAssessingOfficerisrequiredtobeformedobjectively withreferencetothematerialavailableonrecord.Applicationofmindisthesine quanonforformingtheopinion.”Inotherwords,oncetheassesseesubmits primaryevidenceregardingidentityandcreditworthinessofcreditorandthe genuinenessofthetransaction,theonusshiftsupontheAOtoconsiderthe materialprovidedandmakeindependentinquirytofindoutgenuinenessofthe evidenceorbringmaterialcontrarytothefactexplainedbytheassessee.TheAO cannotrejecttheprimaryevidencefurnishedbytheassesseewithoutappreciating thefactsavailableonrecordorwithoutbringinganycontrarymaterialtoformthe beliefthatprimarydocumentorexplanationfurnishedbytheassesseeisnot satisfactory. 9.1Undeniably,theassesseeduringtheappellate/remandproceedingsin supportofgenuinenessofcreditofsharecapitalhasfurnishedName,Address, PAN,andconfirmationoftheshareholdersandcopyofsharecertificateissuedto them.Themoneywascreditedinthebooksoftheassesseethroughthebanking channel.However,theAOandlearnedCIT(A)withoutconsideringthesameand makingindependentinquiryofwhatsoeverheldthattheassesseefailedtoexplain thenatureandsourcesofcreditofsharecapital.Inourconsideredopinion,the approachtakenbytherevenueisnotjustified.Assuch,theassesseeprovided necessarydetailsandthus,theonusshiftedontherevenuetocarryout independentinquiry/investigationandbringcontrarymaterial,buttheAOfailedto doso.Therefore,weherebysetasidethefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)anddirect theAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealofthe assesseeisherebyallowed. ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 6 10.ThenextissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingthedisallowanceofinterestexpenseonaccountofnon-deductionof taxatsources. 11.TheAOfoundthattheassesseehasmadepaymentofinteresttothenon- bankingfinancialinstitution(NBFC)likeTataCapital,RelegareFinvest,Barclay Interest&LoansandKotak-carloansaggregatingtoRs.5,98,044/-onlywithout deductingtaxatsourcesundertheprovisionofsection194AoftheAct.Thus,the AOdisallowedtheclaimofimpugnedinterestexpenseaspertheprovisionof section40(a)(ia)oftheActandaddedtototalincomeoftheassessee. 12.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and submittedthatinterestexpensedisallowedbytheAOincludesanamount aggregatingtoRs.1,95,881/-paidtothebanksnamelyKotakandBarclaysto whichtheprovisionsofsection194AoftheActarenotapplicable.Regardingthe remainingamountofinterestexpensespaidtoNBFCs,theassesseefurnishedform 26Acertifyingthatthepartytowhompaymentwasmadewithouttaxdeduction hadfulfilledtheconditionlaiddownunderfirstprovisotosubsection(1)ofsection 201oftheAct.Therefore,asperthesecondprovisotosection40(a)(ia)oftheAct, nodisallowanceisrequiredtobemade. 13.However,thelearnedCIT(A)partlyconfirmedtheadditionmadebytheAO byobservingasunder: 5.3.Ihavecarefullyconsideredthefactsofthecase,assessmeandsubmissionofthe appellant.TheAOhasmadetheadditionofRs.5,98,044/-onthegroundthatTDShasnot beendeductedfromtheinterestpaidtovariousparties.TheappellantsubmittedthatTDS provisionsisnotapplicableinthecaseofinterestpaymenttobanknamely:Barclayand KotakBankamountingtoRs.1,95,881/-.AsregardtointerestpaymenttoReligareFinance Ltd.andTataCapitalServicesLtd..appellanthassubmittedcopyofC.A.Certificate certifyingthattheaboveincomehasbeenshownintheirreturnofincomeandtaxhas ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 7 beendulypaid.Inviewoftheabove,section40(a)[ia]isnotapplicabletotheextentof interestofRs.1,97,170/-. 5.4.Inviewoftheabove,additionU/540(a)(ia)totheextentofRs.3,93,051/-isdeleted andbalanceadditionisconfirmed.Thegroundofappealispartlyallowed. 14.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 15.ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthattherecipientsoftheinterest paymentmadebytheassesseehavealreadypaidthetaxesonsuchinterestand thereforethesamecannotbesubjectmatterofdisallowanceasper2 nd provisoto section40(a)(ia)oftheAct. 16.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderoftheauthoritiesbelow. 17.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,theassesseehasmadepaymentof interestexpensetocertainNBFCswithoutdeductingtaxatsourceunderthe relevantprovisionsoftheAct.Inthisregard,wenoteitisthedutyoftheassessee todeductappropriatetaxfromtheamountpaid/payabletoanypartyi.e.payeeif suchamountfallunderthepurviewofprovisionofchapterXVII(B)oftheActi.e. deductionatsource.Further,theprovisionofsection40(a)(ia)oftheActprovides thatifassesseefailstodeductorfailstodepositappropriatetaxafterdeductionon theamountpaidwhichwassubjecttoTDSthen,suchamountwillnotbeallowed asbusinessexpense.However,thelegislatorprovidedrelaxationtotheassessee byinsertingthe2 nd provisotosection40(a)(ia)ActvideFinanceAct2012 applicablefrom1 st April2013.Ifanassesseewhofailstodeducttaxatsource,but suchassesseeisnotdeemedtobeassesseeindefaultunderfirstprovisoto subsection(1)tosection201ofsection,thenitistobedeemedthatprovisionof ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 8 section40(a)(ia)hasbeencompliedwith.Theimpugnedprovisohasbeenheldas retrospectiveinnaturebytheHon’bleDelhiHighCourtincaseofCITv.Ansal LandMarkTownship(P)Ltd.(2015)61taxmann.com45(Del). 17.1Asperthefirstprovisotosubsection(1)tosection201oftheAct,an assesseeisdeemedtobenotindefaultifnolosstorevenueresultedduetoshort deduction/non-deductionofTaxi.e. (A)Payeehasincludedtheimpugnedamountonwhichtaxwasnot deducted/shortdeductedinhisreturnofincomefiledundersection139and paystaxesdueonreturnedincomeand (B)PayerproducesacertificateinprescribedformfromaCAtotheeffect thatthepayeehasincludedtheincomeinreturnandpaidtaxesthereof. 17.2TheCBDThasprescribedFormNo.26AforCAcertificatetobeobtained andfurnishedbypayerevidencingcompliancebypayee.Inthepresentcase,the assesseebeforethelearnedCIT(A)providedcertificatefromcharteredaccountant tofulfiltheconditionlaiddowninthefirstprovisotosection201(1)oftheAct whichareplacedonpages77to82ofthepaperbook.Therefore,weareofthe consideredopinionthatnodisallowanceundersection40(a)(ia)oftheActis requiredtobemadeonaccountofnon-deductionoftax.Accordingly,wehereby setasidethefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheaddition madebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 18.Thenextissueraisedbytheassesseeisthattheld.CIT-Aerredin confirmingthedisallowancemadebytheAOforRs.1.19croresrepresentingthe constructionofshade. ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 9 19.Theassesseeintheyearunderconsiderationsoldonevacantpieceofland forRs.2,52,66,000/-only.Accordingtotheassessee,thevacantlandconsistedof oneshademeasuring12,426sq.mtrs.,whichwasclaimedtobeconstructedata costofRs.1.19crores.Thus,theassesseeclaimedthesameascostof improvementbesidesthelandcostwhilecalculatingthecapitalgainonthe transferofland.Theassesseeinsupportofsuchcostofimprovementhas furnishedthecopyoftheinvoiceissuedbyM/sMonarchRealtorsandconfirmation ofsub-contractor,namelyM/sCeejeBuilder.However,theAOhastakenthe statementofM/sCeejeBuilderunderSection131oftheActwhereinitwas admittedhavingconstructedfourgo-downsonbehalfofM/sMonarchRealtorson thevacantland.Thus,theAOdoubtedtheclaimmadebytheassessee representingthecostofimprovementofRs.1.19Crore.AspertheAO,the assesseehasalsonotfurnishedtheexactnatureofshadeandthematerial involvedintheconstructionofsuchshade.OnquestionbytheAO,theassessee submittedthatsubcontractorM/sCeejeBuilderhasnowheredeniedaboutthe workwhichwascarriedoutonthevacantland.However,itmaybepossiblethat thesub-contractorhasalsoconstructedthego-downforM/sMonarchRealtors. ButtheAOdisagreedwiththecontentionoftheassesseeandheldthatthe constructioncostontheshadeisamakeshiftarrangementandaccordingly disallowedthecostofimprovementclaimedbytheassessee. 20.Onappeal,theassesseecontentedthattheshadewasconstructedwhich canbeverifiedfromthesaledeedandthisfactwasalsoadmittedbythesub- contractor.Itwasalsocontendedbytheassesseethatthestatementofthesub- contractorwasobtainedbehindthebackoftheassessee.Eventhestatementof thesub-contractorwasnotprovidedfortherebuttal.Furthermore,theopportunity ofcrossexaminationwasalsonotaffordedtotheassessee.However,theLd. CIT(A)confirmedtheorderoftheAObyobservingasunder: ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 10 “6.3.Ihavecarefullyconsideredthefactsofthecase,assessmentorderandcontention oftheappellant.AppellanthasclaimedlongtermcapitallossofRs.15,13,278/-onthesale oflandat142/143.VasnaChacharVadi.Changodar.Inthecomputationofincome, appellanthasclaimedcostofimprovementofRs.1.19.000/-overandabovethecostof acquisitionofRs.1.38.63.609/-.Theappellantcontendedthatcostofimprovementwasfor constructionmadeonthelandthroughM/s.TouchChemTechPvt.Ltd.andM/s.Monarch Realtors.AppellantfurtherclaimedthatM/s.MonarchRealtorssubcontractedtheworkto CeejeBuildersforworkamountingtoRs.90.90.477/-- 6.4.TheAOmadeinquiryfromM/s.CeejeBuildersandrecordedstatementofShri ShankarialPatel,PrincipalOfficeroftheaboveconcernwhostatedthathehasconstructed fourgodownsforM/s.MonarchRealtorsfortheconsiderationofRs.1.32crores.However, asperthesaledeed.thesaleconsiderationofRs2.52.66.000/-hasbeenreceivedforland andindustrialshed,andtherefore,AOconcludedthatappellanthasnotdoneany improvementandclaimedthecostofimprovementonthewrongbilltoreducethecapital gain.Appelanthascontendedthatithasbeenmentionedinthesaledeeditselfthatlandis inclusiveofindustrialshed,andasperstatementofMr.ShankarialPatel,theconstruction offourgodowndoesnotmeanthatshedwasnotconstructed. 6.5.Theappellanthasclaimedcostofimprovementonthebasisofconfirmationgivenby M/s.TouchChemTechPvt.Ltd.andMonarchRealtors.M/s.MonarchRealtorshassub contractedtheworktoM/sCeejeBuilderswhohasstatedthatithasconstructedfour godownonthepremisesandwaspaidRs.1.32crore.Asevidentfromthesalesagreement, considerationofRs.2.52.66,000/-hasbeenreceivedforlandwithindustrialshedThe industrialshedisstatedtobe750Sq.Mtr,asperthesalesagreement.However,asper thestatementofMr.ShankarialPatel,M/s.CeejeBuilderhasconstructedfourgodowns measuring3200Sq.Mtr.Therefore,theappellant'scontentionthatcostofimprovement claimedwasfortheworkdonebyCeejeBuildersisnotproved.InviewofIneabove disallowancemadebytheAOisconfirmed.” 21.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseepreferred appealbeforeus. 22.TheLd.ARbeforeussubmittedthatthestatementofthesub-contractor wasnotprovidedtotheassesseeforitsrebuttal,whichisagainsttheprincipleof naturaljusticeandthereforethesamecannotbereliedupon.TheLd.ARalso submittedthattheopportunityofcrossexaminationofthesub-contractorwasnot providedbytheRevenue.TheLd.ARalsocontendedthatthesubcontractorhas nowheredeniedhavingcarriedouttheworkonimpugnedvacantland.Assuch, ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 11 therewasapossibilitythatthesubcontractorhadcarriedoutotherworkaswellon behalfoftheM/sMonarchRealtors. 23.Ontheotherhand,Ld.DRvehementlysupportedtheordersofthe authoritiesbelow. 24.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Atthethreshold,wenotethattheAOhasnot reproducedthefullcopyofthestatementrecordedundersection131oftheActin assessmentorder.Even,theAOhasnotreproducedtheanswertoquestionNo.5 ofthestatementofthesubcontractorintheassessmentorderthoughthesame wasconnectedtothedisputeonhand.Itisthesettledlawthatthebasisof disallowingtheclaimoftheassesseehastobeconfrontedtotheassessee.Butit hasnotbeendoneso.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofKishichand Chellaramvs.CITreportedin125ITR713hadheldasunder: ThestatementscontainedinthisletteraddressedbythemanagerofthebanktotheITO wereinthenatureofheresayevidenceandcouldnotberelieduponbytherevenue authorities.Therevenueauthoritiescouldhaveverywellcalleduponthemanagerofthe banktoproducethedocumentsandpapersonthebasisofwhichhemadethestatements containedinhisletterandconfrontedtheassesseewiththosedocumentsandpapersbut insteadofdoingso,therevenueauthoritieschosetorelymerelyonthestatements containedintheletterandthattoo,withoutshowingthelettertotheassessee. 24.1Movingfurther,wenotethattheopportunityofcrossexaminationofthe subcontractorhasnotbeengiventotheassessee,whichisagainsttheprinciples ofnaturaljustice.Inthisregard,wedrawsupportandguidancefromthe judgmentofHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofAndamanTimberIndustriesv. CCEreportedin62taxmann.com3whereinitwasheldasunder: "Assessment-Naturaljustice-Denialofopportunitytocross-examinewitnesses-Denialof opportunitytotheassesseetocross-examinethewitnesseswhosestatementsweremade thesolebasisoftheassessmentisaseriousflawrenderingtheorderanullityinasmuch asitamountedtoviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljustice-Impugnedorderaspassedby theTribunalissetaside." ITANo.697/Ahd/2018 A.Y.2013-14(M/s.MeridianTelesoft Ltd.vs.ACIT) 12 24.2Besidestheabove,wenotethatthereisalackofclarityinthestatement furnishedbythesubcontractorunderSection131oftheAct.Onperusalofthe statement,thereisnodenialbythesubcontractorofnothavingcarriedoutany workontheimpugnedvacantland.Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringthe factsintotality,wedonotfindanyreasontoupholdthefindingoftheLd.CIT(A). Hence,wesetasidethefindingoftheLd.CIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletethe additionmadebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheassesseeis allowed. 25.Intheresult,theappealpreferredbytheassesseeisallowed. OrderpronouncedinOpenCourton20-11-2023 Sd/-Sd/- (T.R.SENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER Ahmedabad:Dated (TrueCopy)