The ITO, Ward-14(3), Ahmedabad V. Shri Harshad Manilal Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 789/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 78920514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

-1- , , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , , , . .. . . .. . , , , , !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.789/AHD/2010 ( % & '& % & '& % & '& % & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ITO WARD-14(3) AHMEDABAD % % % % / VS. SHRI HARSHAD MANILAL SHAH 16, GOLDEN TULIP BUNGALOWS AMBAWADI AHMEDAAD-380 015 ( !' ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AQAPS 7532 D ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA ,-(+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA, A.R. %0 / ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 29/5/2014 12' / ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/6/14 !3 / O R D E R PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 25/1/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,04,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSITS U/S.68 OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBL E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREE SHAKTI COTTON PVT.LTD. IN WHICH THE A DDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTY. - 2 - 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISGUIDED THE DEPARTMENT BY FURNISHING UNTRUE INFORMATION/AFFIDAVIT ABOUT HIS S.B.ACCOUNT NO.4161. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F IN CONSEQUENCE TO DELETION TO ADD ITION OF RS.24,04,000/- FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED EARLIER. 4. THE LEARED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S.17 OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF SECTION 10 AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED. ADDITIONAL GROUND 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN HOLDING THAT REASSESSMENT WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A CA SH OF RS.24,04,000/- WITH HDFC BANK DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06. THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009. THE AO COLLECTED THIS INFORMATION U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 17.11.2008. THE SATELLITE/AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD BRACH OF HDFC BANK REP ORTED VIDE LETTER DATED 29.11.2008/10.12.2008 THAT THERE IS NO ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE SHRI HARSHAD MANILAL SHAH. HOWEVER, LATER ON, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD BRANCH HAS SENT COPY OF ACCOUNT NO.004810 50011381 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT CONTAIN CASH DEPOSITS TRANSACTIONS FOR RS.24,04,000/-. THE HE AD OFFICE MUMBAI WAS AGAIN REMINDED BY THE AO FOR FURNISHING ALL DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 04.12.2008. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE UPTO 31.12.2008. THE ASSESSEE SHRI H.M.SHAH MADE AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE NOT ARY ON 30/31.12.2008 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM ON 31/ 12/2008. IT WAS - 3 - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO CASH DEPOS IT IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO NOT HAVING ANY OTHER ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK. THE LD.AO REPRODUCED THE AFFIDAVIT ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON 01.11.2009, THE ITO WARD-14(3) AHMEDABAD RECEIVED LETTER DATED 31/12/2008 FORM HDFC BANK, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD ENCLO SING THEREIN A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2005 TO 31/03/2006 IN RESPECT OF A/C.NO.05061000004161. THE SCRUTINY OF SAID ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT THERE WERE CREDIT ENTRIES FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.24,04,000/- AS UNDER:- DATE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED 03/05/2005 5,00,000 11.10.2005 2,20,000 20.10.2005 4,75,000 14.11.2005 1,84,000 30.11.2005 3,50,000 26.12.2005 4,50,000 30.01.2006 2,00,000 16.03.2006 25,000 ------------ 24,04,000 ------------ 2.1. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE INFORMATION, THE AO RE CORDED THE REASON U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICEU/S.148 OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED ON 20/02/2009 AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE RETUR N IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RE TURN IN TIME EVEN AFTER NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO-OPERATIVE TO FILE THE IT RETURN. THE AO ISSUED REMINDER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING U/S.144 OF THE ACT. FIN ALLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN ON 14/10/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.89,110/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOSS UNDER THE HEAD OF SHORT -TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARE, LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD - 4 - ORNAMENTS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THEACT,1 961 IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENCLO SED THE COPY OF SALE BILLS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 FOR RS.26,10,434/-. THE DE TAILS ARE AS UNDER:- BILL NO. BOOK NO. DATE AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEED 41 1 01.05.2005 5,37,450/- 98 1 10.10.2005 7,26,580/- 109 2 12.11.2005 5,80,792/- 119 2 25.11.2005 7,65,692/- ------------- 26,10,534/- 2.2. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE TO SCRUTINIZE THE CASE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE OWNER/PARTNER OF M/S.AARTI JE WELLERS, 126, SAHELI COMPLEX, VIRATNAGAR ROAD, ODHAV AHMEDABAD TO ATTEND THE OFFICE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS, CORRECTNESS OF THE SALE BIL L OF RS.26,10,434/- BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT DATED 22.10.2009 . THE OWNER/ PARTNER OF M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS WAS ASKED TO ATTEND THE OFFICE ON 30.10.2009 ALONG WITH COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FO R THE F.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS.24,04,000/- VIDE VARIOUS LETTERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED WITH THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND HAD NOT PROVIDED NEW ADDRESS OF THE M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS. T HE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST ASKED TO SUBMIT THE NEW ADDRESS OF M/S.AART I JEWELLERS WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY LETTER DATED 07/12/2009. THE NEW ADDRESS WAS ALSO NOT COMPLETE. THE AO COLLECTED THE ADDRESS FROM TH E SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF TIN AND, THEREFORE, COR RECT ADDRESS WAS GATHERED FROM THE SALES-TAX OFFICE. SUMMONS U/S.13 1 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 08/12/2009 TO THE PROPRIETOR/PARTNER OF M /S.AARTI JEWELLERS TO - 5 - VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE PRESENT ON 17/12/2009 FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. SHRI AMITKUMAR MAFATLAL PATEL PROPRIETOR OF M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS AP PEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 09/12/2009 WHO HAD CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING B EEN MADE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SALE/PURCHA SE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR RS.26,10,434/-. SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL ALSO DID NOT KNOW THE ASSESSEE. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S.131 OF TH E ACT, 1961 ON OATH AND ALSO SHOWN TO HIM THE XEROX COPIES OF THE SALES BILLS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. IT WAS ADMITTED BY SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL THAT BILLS WERE NOT GENUINE AND ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER WAS ALSO W RONG AND ONLY TIN WAS CORRECT. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, HE ONLY ISSUES VOUCHER AND NOT THE BILL. THE AO REPRODUCED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL ON PAGE NO.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT ATTENDED BEFORE THE A O ON 17.12.2009 FOR CROSS-VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE W AS OUT OF STATION ON THE PARTICULAR DATE AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. LATER ON, TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AO AGAIN REQUESTED ON 21.12.2009 FOR VERIFICATION OF PROPRIETOR OF M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS. ON 21.12.2009, SHRI AJAY CHAYA C.A. ATTENDEDS PERSONALLY AND REPORTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI HARSHAD MANILAL SHAH IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUC E THE OWNER/PARTNER OF M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS. HE FINALLY AGREED TO MAKE PR OPOSED ADDITION OF RS.24,04,000/- ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. AC CORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.24,04,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. I T WAS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE RE-OPENING MADE BY THE AO WAS NO THING BUT - 6 - REVIEW/REAPPRAISAL OF THE INFORMATION WITH THE DEPA RTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF AIR. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER C ASS BECAUSE THE CASH DEPOSITED WITH THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM THE REGIONAL OFFICER OF THE HDFC BANK AS WELL AS HEAD O FFICE MUMBAI. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 31/12/2008 ON TH E INCOME OF RS.88,080/- EVEN WITHOUT MAKING ANY PROTECTIVE ADDI TION OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN QUESTION. THE AO ONLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE BANK ON 2.1.2009 WITH A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT STATING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.24,04,000/-. THIS I NTIMATION CANNOT BE SAD TO BE A NEW INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CASH DEPOSI TED BUT IT IS ONLY PROVIDED THE EXACT DETAILS OF DEPOSIT MADE BY THE A PPELLANT. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED THE OFFICE-NOTE GIVEN BY TH E AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2008 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE AO IS TO MAKE TE NTATIVE ASSESSMENT INITIALLY AND THE RE-OPENING OF THE SAME WHICH IS N OT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PRESENT LAW. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGEMEN T OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2009-2011 OF 2003 DATED 18/01/2010 WHICH WAS ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND RE-OPENING AND ALSO TANGIBLE MATERIAL. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE POWER OF HE AO TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14 7 OF THE ACT WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE WIDE BUT THEY ARE NOT PLENARY OR TO REVIEW/REAPPRAISE THE CONCLUD ED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE-ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO HELD AS ILLEGAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION BY THE LD.CIT(A). FURTHER, HE HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL RECORDED ON 09/12/2009 BY THE AO AND ALLOWED SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE IN. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS T O BE QUASHED. FURTHER, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE - 7 - CASE OF KISHANCHAND CHELARAM VS. CIT (125 ITR 713) AND ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHREE SHAKTI COTTO N PVT.LTD. (IN ITA NO.528/AHD/2009 DATED 30.1.2009). ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD .SR.DR ARGUED THAT THERE WAS AIR INFORMATION WITH THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.24,04,000/- WITH HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. TH IS INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE HEAD OFFICE BUT EXACT DETAIL WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FRO SCRUTINY ON THE BAS IS OF AIR UNDER CASS, BUT WAS GOING TO BE TIME-BARRED ON 31.12.200 8. THE AO MADE AN OFFICE-NOTE ALONGWITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT MORE THAN RS.10 LACS WITH HDFC BANK, AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CALLED AND A SKED TO PROVIDE DETAILS BUT HE DENIED HAVING BEEN MADE ANY CASH DEP OSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 31/12/200 8, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT NO OTHER BANK ACCOUNT WAS HAVING IN HDF C BANK EXCEPT BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 17.11.2008 BY THE AO TO THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF HDFC BANK, MUMBAI. THE CASE WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31/12/2008, THEREFORE HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY PUTTING TH E OFFICE-NOTE AS ANNEXURE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. FINALLY , THIS INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ON 01/11/2009 FROM HDFC BANK AMBAWADI BRAN CH, AHMEDABAD IN WHICH DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE SUP PLIED BY THE BANK. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO RECORDED THE REASONS U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT BEFORE THE AO. THE ALLEGED GOL D ORNAMENTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FOUND NOT GENUINE AS SHRI AMI TKUMAR PATEL DENIED - 8 - THAT NO ORNAMENTS HAD BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE ASSES SEE DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 AND CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY T HE AO WHICH WAS NOT AVAILED BY HIM. 4.1. THE LD.SR.DR DRAWN OUT ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.8 & 9 OF THE PAPER-BOOK; WHEREIN ON 21/12/2009 THE LEGAL REPRESE NTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS ADMITTED ON ORDER-SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSI TION TO PRODUCE THE OWNER/PARTNER OF M/S.AARTI JEWELLERS TO WHOM HE CLA IMED TO HAVE SOLD GOLD ORNAMENTS. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.24,04,000/- PERTAINED TO CA SH DEPOSIT IN THE HDFC BANK A/C. NO.05061000004161 AND ALSO DID NOT W ANT TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE OWNER/PARTNER/PROPRIETOR OF M/S.AARTI J EWELLERS. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIABLE AND QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 OF THE ACT. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED THE RE- OPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND HE DID NOT MAKE ADDIT ION OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC. THIS INFO RMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND LATER ON NOTHING NEW INFO RMATION WAS FOUND BY THE AO. THE AO COULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED THE PR OCEEDING U/S.263 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT U/S.148 OF THE ACT. ON MERIT ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CO-OPERATED WIT H THE AO TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL PROPRIET OR OF M/S.AARTI JEWELERS. THE AO HAD NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE OPPOR TUNITY PROVIDED BY THE AO FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS MERE FORMALITY IN THE ABSENCE OF A - 9 - COY OF STATEMENT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIR M THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN REJOINDER, HE REQUESTED TO THE BENC H IT CAN BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR ALLOWING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION S HRI AMITKUMAR PATEL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN FOUR YEARS, THE AO HAS WIDE POWER BUT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE AIR INFORMATION ON 31/12/2008, THEREFORE HE MADE THE OFFICE-NOTE ALONG WITH THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHEN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE HDFC BANK, MUMBAI HE RECORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUE D THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ON VALID REASONS AND AS PER LAW AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN AFFIDAVIT TO MISGUIDE THE AO AND HAD NOT EXTENDED THE CO-OPERATI ON WITH THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BY CONSIDERING THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER ON THIS CASE. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL AND ALSO ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, BUT HE HAS NOT AVAILED THIS OPPO RTUNITY. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BAC K TO THE FILE OF AO AND DIRECTED THE AO TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMITKUMAR PATEL AND ALSO ALLOW THE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE A SSESSEE. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE AO FOR COMP LETING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMIT ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION . ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. - 10 - ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- (12.6.14) SD/- ) ( .. ) !' ( MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT ) ( T.R. MEENA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED / /2014 ..%, .%../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH JUNE 14 SD/- SD/- 20.6.14 (AM) (JM) NSS MKS - 11 - !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 5. 49: ,% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;& <0 / GUARD FILE. !3% !3% !3% !3% / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..30.5.14 (DICTATION-PAD 31- PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.5.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.20.6.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.6.14 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