Sri Manoj P Nichani, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 729/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2037 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SREELEKHA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 234B; 147; 132; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.729, 730, 731 & 732/BANG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2004- 05) SRI MANOJ P NICHANI, C/O M/S B.J.N HOTELS, GOLDEN ORCHID, S-2, K BLOCK, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE. - APPELLANT VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(3), BANGALORE. - RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V SREELEKHA O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE FOUR APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-VI, BANGALORE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 00-01, 01-02 AND 04-05. ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE RATHER IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEPT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME WHICH DIFFERS FROM EACH AY. 2.1. GROUND NO.1 FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER DISPUTE IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DOESNT SURVI VE FOR ADJUDICATION AND, THUS, DISMISSED AS SUCH. 2.2. THE REMAINING GROUNDS, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE, ARE REFRAMED IN CONCISE MANNERS AS UNDER: GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 : I NVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C WAS VOID- AB-INITIO AS NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BEFO RE ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION BY THE AO; GROUND NOS: 4 & 4.1: NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS EX CEPT DERIVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ASST. YEAR INCOME ESTIMATED 1999-2000 RS. 3,00,000 2000-2001 RS. 5,00,000 2001-2002 RS. 8,00,000 2004-2005 R S.10,00,000 + 1,44,000 [UNEXPLAINED EXP.] ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 3 GROUND NO: 5: THE ASSESSEE DENIES LIABLE TO BE CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234AAND 234B OF THE ACT. GROUND NO: 6 : COSTS MAY BE AWARDED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FE E AS PART OF THE COSTS. 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED ARE INTER-LINKED AND IDENT ICAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, THESE APPEALS ARE CONSIDERE D TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMMON ORDER. 4. THE HISTORY OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, THERE WAS AN ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF BJN HOTELS LTD. O N 17.12.2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE SAID PREMISES, A DIARY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS UNEARTHED WHICH CONTAINED CERTA IN TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PROPRIETOR OF B. J. HOSPITALITY. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH, THE ASSESSEE HAD , PERHAPS, ADMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DIARY WAS MAINTAINED BY HIM AND THE NOTING MADE IT WAS IN HIS HANDWRITING, ACCORDING TO WHICH, HE HAD ALLEGED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS. FROM THE FILE SEIZED, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.14.27 LAKHS. IT WAS THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEIZED IN THE PREMISES OF BJN HOTELS LIMIT ED BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.11.06 REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH A RETURN OF ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 4 INCOME BY 20.12.2006. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIAN CE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND ALSO A LE TTER DATED: 20.12.2006 TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DETAILS BY 22.12.2006. YET AGAIN, THERE WAS A STOCKY SILENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION WERE CONCLUDED U/S 153C R.W .SEC. 144 OF THE ACT AND FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN THE RESPECTI VE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, ESTIMATING THE INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE AS U NDER: ASST. YEAR INCOME ESTIMATED 1999-2000 RS. 3,00,000 2000-2001 RS. 5,00,000 2001-2002 RS. 8,00,000 2004-2005 R S.10,00,000 + RS. 1,44,000 [UNEXPLAINED EXP.] 5. DISENCHANTED WITH THE STAND OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE ISSUES TO THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. THE ISSUES AGITATED BEFORE THE CIT (A) IN BRIEF WAS: (I) ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT BY TH E AO; (II) NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS DENIED; (III) ESTIMATION OF INCOMES WITHOUT ANY BASIS; & (IV) ADDITION OF RS.1.44 LAKHS BEING LOW DRAWING FOR THE AY 04-05. 5.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SPIRITED AND FORCEFUL A RGUMENTS PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD, INDEED , VIRTUALLY SUSTAINED THE STAND OF THE AO IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEP T IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 5 THE ADDITION OF RS.1.44 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRA WINGS FOR THE AY 04-05 WHICH HAS BEEN SLASHED TO RS.36000/- THAT WAS , THE ONLY SOLACE EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A). 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE US F OR ALL THE AYS UNDER DISPUTE. THE LD. A R, IN FACT, REIT ERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THIS BENCH TOO, THE LD. A R HAD VEHEMENTLY AR GUED AT LENGTH, THE GIST OF WHICH, IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 153 C OF THE ACT IS CHALLENGED ON TWO COUNTS, VIZ., (I) THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS ABSENT, AND (II) NO REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT; (II) THERE WERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS THAT BELONGED TO THE AS SESSEE THAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF S.153A OF THE ACT; - S.153C OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED IN CASE ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THIN G OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGED TO A NY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED AND HE CAN BE PROCEEDED AGAINST U/S 153C OF THE ACT BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS FROM THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHE D; - BEFORE PROCEEDING U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE AO, OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THIN G OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED; ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 6 (III) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD REFERRED TO CER TAIN DIARY WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, T HE AO HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONTENTS OF TH E DIARY WERE STATED TO BE RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES UNCLE AND THE TRANSA CTIONS IN THE DIARY WERE CONSIDERED AS THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES UNCLE; (IV) IT WAS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT, ME RELY BECAUSE THE DIARY WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSE SSEE; - IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE MERE HANDWRITING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WOULD NOT RENDER THE BOOKS AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE; (V) THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT WERE INAPPLICAB LE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED ON AN INVALID AND ILLEGAL ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT DESERVE TO BE CAN CELLED; - RELIES ON THE RULINGS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT REP ORTED IN 82 ITR 821 AND 289 ITR 541; (VI) THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE AC T TO FILE RETURNS OF INCOME WITHIN 20 DAYS WHICH WAS SERV ED ON 30/11/2006 WITH JUST A MONTH LEFT FOR COMPLETION OF TIME-BARRING ASSESSMENT(S). (VII) SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED I.E., BEFORE 20.12.06, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS EX-PARTE ON 22/12/06 HOLD ING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT OF FILING THE ROI AND NON- FURNISHING OF DETAILS CALLED FOR IN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT; - THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS EX-PAR TE AND THAT THE VARIOUS EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED IN THE ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 7 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GO TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE; - RELIES ON THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD REPORTED IN 41 ITD 57; (VIII) THE ESTIMATION OF INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ARBITRARY IN NATURE; - RELIES ON THE RULING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 26 ITR 775; (IX) THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT MA Y BE DISPOSED OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6.1. BUTTRESS HIS WELL-NETTED ARGUMENTS, THE LD. A R HAD FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING OF 1- 35 PAGES WH ICH MAINLY CONSIST OF COPIES OF P & L ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEETS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AO. 6.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. WAS VERY EMPHA TIC IN HER RESOLVES THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TAKEN THE STAND IN A REASONABLE MANNER AND THAT DUE TO NON-COOPERATION ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO WAS LEFT WITH NO O PTION EXCEPT TO RUSH THROUGH TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENTS IN WELL B ALANCED MANNER WITH THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ALSO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL (DIARY AND ANOTHER FOLDER) BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONCEDED BY THE A SSESSEE HIMSELF DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH. IT WAS, THEREFORE, URGED THAT THE WELL JUDGED STAND OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BE SUSTAINED IN TOTO. ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 8 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS, PAPER-BOOK FURNISHED BY THE LD. A R AND ALSO THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE. 7.1. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER DISPUTE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD RATHER ELABORATELY ANALYZED THE APPLICABILITY OF T HE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT. WE VENTURE TO QUOTE SELECTIV ELY THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) AS UNDER: (I) S. 153C OF THE ACT DOESNT SAYS THAT SATISFACTION OR REASONS FOR INITIATION BE RECORDED OBJECTIVELY AS IS DONE MANDATORILY IN THE CASE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT; (II) THE MOMENT A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR REQUISITION IS MADE U/S 132 OF THE ACT, AUTOMATICALLY THE ASSESSMENT OF PRECEDING SIX YEARS GETS REOPENED U/S 153A OF THE AC T AND THAT THE MOMENT THE THIRD PERSONS ASSETS/BOOKS/MATERIALS WERE FOUND, HE IS TO BE BOOK ED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED AS PER LAW. IT IS ENOUGH, IF THE A O POINTS OUT THE BOOKS/ASSETS/MATERIALS BELONGING TO THE PER SON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED TO ASSUME JURISDICTI ON U/S 153C OF THE ACT; (III) IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE AO HAD POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT THE SEARCH WARRANTS WERE IN THE NAMES OF P.B.NICHANI AND BJN HOTELS PVT. LTD WHEREI N THE BOOKS IN THE SHAPE OF A DIARY AND A NANDI SPRING FILE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND WHICH CONTAINE D SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; & (IV) THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE SEIZED BOOKS (S AY DIARY) WERE WRITTEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE S ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 9 UNCLE [P B NICHANI] DOESNT HOLD WATER BECAUSE OF T HE FACT THAT THESE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE NOT DISOWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7.1.1. LET US NOW HAVE A GLANCE ON WHAT SECTION 15 3C: 153C(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED HT AN Y MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THIN G OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BEL ONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRE D TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCU MENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EA CH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A 7.1.2. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C REFERR ED SUPRA AND ALSO WELL REASONING OF THE LD. CIT (A), WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS COUNT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE AO W AS WITHIN HIS DOMAIN IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7.2. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUSE OF THE ASSESSEE THA T NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED, WE HAD PERUSED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AO IN DETAIL. 7.2.1. IT WAS THE VERSION OF THE AO THAT AS THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME; A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20/12/06 REQUESTING HIM TO FILE A ROI A ND ALSO ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 10 PRODUCE CERTAIN DETAILS (WITH SIXTEEN SEARCHING QUE STIONS BY WAY OF A LETTER DATED: 20.12.06) AND THE CASE WAS POSTED F OR HEARING ON 22.12.06. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE EITHER WIT H THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OR FOR THE LETTER, THE AO WENT AHEAD AND CON CLUDED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 144 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE AYS IN D ISPUTE. 7.2.2. JUSTIFYING THE AOS STAND, THE CIT(A) HAD OB SERVED, AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE SELECTIVELY QUOTE: (I) THE SEARCHED (SIC) SEARCH PARTY HAD SEIZED AND RECOR DED HIS STATEMENT AS TO THESE TWO SEIZED DOCUMENTS DURI NG THE DATE OF SEARCH ITSELF AND EVEN THEREAFTER ON 31 .1.05. HE SHOULD HAVE GOT HIMSELF READY FOR FILING OR GIVIN G REASON FOR NON-FILING OF THE RETURNS FROM THE DATE OF RECORDING OF HIS STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ENTRIE S IN THE DIARY ACQUISISED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY HI M AND ALSO OWNED BY HIM. (II) INSTEAD, HE PREFERRED TO REMAIN KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY INNOCENT AND IGNORANT AND EVEN DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON 30/11/2006 REQUIRING HIM TO FILE THE RETURN BY 20/12 /06. EVEN HE FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE SPECIFIC QUERIES M ADE IN THE ENCLOSURES TO NOTICE DATED: 20.12.06 ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. 7.2.3. HOWEVER, WE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASO NING OF THE LD. CIT (A). WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW, THAT STA ND OF THE BOTH, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT (A), WERE AGAINST THE VER Y SPIRIT OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR-PLAY. AS OBSERVED BY THE HI GHEST COURT OF THE LAND ON MANY OCCASIONS THAT DENIAL OF A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TANTAMOUNT TO DENIAL OF JUST ICE ITSELF. ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 11 NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN A GREAT HURR Y TO BEAT THE LIMITATION BY 31/12/2006. NEVERTHELESS, THE VARIOUS EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GOE S TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXP LAIN HIS CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS COULD NOT BE RUSHED THROUGH AT THE COST OF DENYING NATURAL JUSTICE AND E QUITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN AO CALLED FOR RETURN OF INCOME, TOWA RDS THE FAG END OF THE MONTH, WHEN ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED. WE ARE ALSO NOT ACCEDING TO THE ARS CONTENTIONS THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS A NULLITY AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED, IN LIGHT DECISION OF HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GUDUTHUR BROS. VS. ITO, 40 ITR 2 98 AND THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SEWD UTTROY RAMBULLAV AND SON VS. CIT, 117 CTR 22, WHEREIN IT I S CLEARLY STATED THAT ON ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS A CURABLE DEFECT AND DOES NOT RENDER TH E ASSESSMENT NON-EST OR NULLITY. 7.2.4. IN AN OVER ALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORE -GOING PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE M ATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK ON THE FILES OF THE AO FOR ALL THE AYS IN DISPUTE, WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE AO TO LOOK INTO TH E ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE OF BEING HEARD AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE, THROUG H HIS COUNSEL, IS ADVISED TO FURNISH ALL RELEVANT PARTICULARS AND INF ORMATION AT HIS ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 12 POSSESSION AND TO CO-OPERATIVE WITH THE AO WHICH WO ULD FACILITATE HIM TO CARRY OUT DIRECTIONS SET-FORTH SUPRA. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7.3. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SINCE THE PRIME ISSUE IS REVERTED BACK ON THE FILE(S) OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, THE OTHER ISSUES AGITAT ED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME OBSOLETE AND, THUS, THEY HAVE N OT BEEN ADDRESSED TO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2004- 05 ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 DEC, 2009. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (GEORGE GEORG E K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER BANGALORE DATED : 04/12/09 VMS. ITA NO.729 TO 732/B/09 13 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF 7. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGAL ORE.