Samirsingh C. Vaghela, Ahmedabad V. The CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad

ITA 798/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8154 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.798 & 799/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SMAIRSINGH C. VAGHELA COSMOS CASTLE OPP WIDE ANGLE CINEMA SG HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD / VS. THE CIT(A)-XVI AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACWPPV 0352 L ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : NONE ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 08/11/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/ 11 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INST ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DAT ED 01/04/2012 ARISING IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') D ATED 30/12/2010 AND ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITANO.799/AHD/2014 AY 2008-09. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R EAD AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,75,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT OF RS.69,22,000/- U/S.6 9 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 3. THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 08/11/2017. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE REC ORD THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PAST HAS TAKEN SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED THE PAPER-BOOK NOR PRODU CED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO REMAINED ABSENT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PR OCESS SET OUT IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE CONSTR AINED TO PROCEED EX- PARTE . ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 4. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DEALING WITH THE ISSUES INVOLVED READ AS UNDER:- 5.0 THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING THE A DDITION OF RS.27,71,123/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT BASIS FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT THE BHAGYODAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SATELLITE, A HMEDABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A DETAILED SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED ON 16-12-2010. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HIS REPLY ON 27-12-2010 WHI CH HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSE E WAS REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I,) THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TIES-.TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE.. HOWEVER, HE DID RIOT TURN UP AND AT THE FAG END HIS BROTHER SHRI DEVENDRA VAGHELA ALONG WITH DULY AUTHORISED AR SHRI ANIL C. BRAHMAKSHATRIYA CA ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUFFERS A SEVERE CARDIAC ARREST ON 3 RD DECEMBER, 2010. HE WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR WHICH NECESSARY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE SAID SEVE RE CARDIAC ARREST BUT HE DID NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE. (II.) THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, TO CONSIDER THE TOTAL CREDIT APPEARING IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH BHAGYODAYA CO. O P. BANK LTD.,SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD AS TURNOVER OF HIS BUS INESS OF TEXTILE AUXILIARY AND CONSIDER THE NP @ 7.37 % WHICH IS AS APPEARING IN B OOKS CANNOT BE ACCEDED BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CREDIT IS A TURNOVER OF HIS BUSINESS. (III.) IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT EXACT EXPLANATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE ENTRIES APPEAR ING IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AS HE HAS BEEN ADVISED BY THE DOCTOR TO TAK E STRICT BED-REST. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVER AND THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSMENT IS TIME BARRING ON 31-12-2010, NO OPTION IS LEFT FOR UNDERS IGNED EXCEPT TO PASS THE, ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSIDERING ENTRIES APPEARING IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT ARE UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES. ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - (IV) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS POSSESSED 55 VIGHAS LAND JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE, AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSE E AND HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.20 TO 25 LACS PER YEAR. IN SUPPORT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED 7/12 EXTRACT SHOWING OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF THE AGR ICULTURE LAND. ON GOING THROUGH THE 7/12 EXTRACT OF REVENUE RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE O WNED AND POSSESSED 55 VIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE AND OUT OF WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE EARNED 2 0 TO 25 LKHS PER YEAR. THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN HIS CLAIM TO HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE AGRICULTURE BILLS/OTHER SUPPORTING TO HAVE SUCH INCOME. MOREOVER, HIS INCOME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09. IN ABSENCE OF AGRICULTURE BILLS ETC. THE CREDIT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE. 5.1. ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, AN ADDITI ON OF RS.27,71,123/- WAS MADE ON PEAK CREDIT BASIS. THE HIGHEST PEAK WAS FOR RS. 27,71,123/- AS ON 02.05.2007. 5.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED HUGE CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED WITH THE BHAGYODAYA CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD BUT THE F IGURES OF CASH DEPOSITS WERE NOT RS.30 LAKHS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ORDER BUT FAR MORE AND ROUGHLY RS.49,49,37,000/-. HOWEVER, THE HIGHEST PE AK DEPOSIT WAS AVAILABLE ON 02.05.2007 TO RS.27,71,123/-. NO ANY PLAUSIBLE EXP LANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS. 1,17,72,023/- MAY BE CONSIDERED AS T URNOVER AND NET PROFIT RATE OF 7.37% BE APPLIED FOR TAXING THE INCOME AT RS, 8,67, 598/-FROM BANK DEPOSITS WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDIN G THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT O F TURNOVER. THE TURNOVER HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. I AGREE WIT H THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 20 TO 25 LAKHS PER YEAR AND THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT- ARE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL SALE PROCEEDS. THE ASSESS EE HAD ONLY FURNISHED 7/12 EXTRACTS. THE 7/12 EXTRACTS ONLY SHOW THE LAND HOLD ING. FOR TAKING THE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, EITHER IT. HAD TO BE DECLARED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME OR SHOULD HAVE BEEFS PROVED BY ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE SALE BILLS ETC. OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE LAND CANNOT PRODUCE ANYTH ING UNLESS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT. IF THE IRRIGATION FACIL ITY OF CANAL OR TUBEWELL ARE AVAILABLE THEN, THE EVIDENCE OF CANAL LEVY OR ELECTRICITY BIL LS ARE TO BE PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THAT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME CAN BE ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - ESTIMATED ONLY IF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE C ARRIED OUT AND THE PRODUCE IS SOLD IN THE MARKET. THE SALE BILLS ARE TO BE PRODUCED FO R ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINCE, NEITHER THE EVIDENCES OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME WAS FOUND DECLARED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS J USTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR HAVING ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 5.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I T IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF TREATING THE DEPOSITS AS TURNOVER AND T REATING THE DEPOSITS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN APPELLANTS BANK ACCO UNT BUT HE HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF THE CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.2W,123/- DATED 25.04.2 007 AND CHEQUES DEPOSITS OF 20,00,000/- DATED 25.04.2007 AND RS.7,00,000/- DATE D 02.05.2007 TOTALLING TO RS.27,77,123/- IN THE NAME OF HIGHEST PEAK. THE T HEORY OF PEAK CAN BE APPLIED ONLY IF CASH IS WITHDRAWN AND REDEPOSITED AT SHORT INTER VALS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE IT IS PRESUMED THAT CASH WITHDRAWN WAS REDEPOSITED. HOWE VER, SUCH PEAK THEORY CANNOT BE APPLICABLE FOR THE CHEQUE DEPOSITS. FOR THE CHE QUE DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH C HEQUE RECEIPTS FOR DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER THE SAME HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND INCOME GENERATED FROM IT H AD BEEN DECLARED FOR TAXATION. NEITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ANY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CHEQUES DEPOSITS OF 20,00,000/- DATED 25.04.2007 AND RS.7,75,000/- DAT ED 02.05.2007 TOTALLING TO RS.27,75,000/-. THE ADDITION OF RS.27,75,000/- IS THUS SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THEORY OF PEAK CREDIT. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY A LLOWED. 6.0 THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT WAS CALLED FOR F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS NOTICED ON EXAMINATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MA INTAINING A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.SB-1673 WITH THE BHAGYODAYA CO-O0PERATIVE BANK L TD., SHYAMSAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAD MADE THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.9,80,000/- AND RS.9,50,000/- IN JUNE , 2007, RS.15,00,000/- ON 26/09/2007, RS.15,00,000/- ON 26/09/2007, RS.15,00, 000/- ON 04.10.2007 AND RS.2,000/- ON 04/10/2007. APART FROM IT, THE APPEL LANT HAD ALSO DEPOSITED RS.20,00,000/- BY CLEARING ON 10.05.2007. THE APPE LLANT HAD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.49 ,22,000/- AND THE CHEQUE DEPOSITS OF RS.20,00,000/- BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO ADDITION OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.49,22,000/- AND THE CHEQUE DEPOSITS OF RS.20, 00,000/- WERE MADE BY THE ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. TO TAX THE AFORESAID UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF IN COME WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: PLEASE REFER TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NO.SB-1573 MAINT AINED IN THE BHAGYODAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE , MAHAVIR NAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380 015. 2.0 IT WAS NOTICED ON SCRUTINY OF YOUR BANK ACCOU NT THAT YOU HAVE MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AS UNDER: 06/2007 9,70,000/- 06/2007 9,50,000/- 26/09/2007 15,00,000/- 04/10/2007 15,00,000/- 04/10/2007 2,000/- RS.49,22,000/- 3.0 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.12.2010 HAD NOT CONSIDERED THESE DEPOS ITS. 4.0 YOU ARE THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO PLEASE SHOW CAU SE AS TO WHY NOT YOUR INCOME IS ENHANCED BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.49, 22,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.49,22,000/- AS THER E IS NO EXPLAINED SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE APPAR ENTLY SEEM TO BE FROM YOUR UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. LIKEWISE, THERE IS A CHEQUE D EPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/- ON 19.05.2007. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPO SIT. WHETHER YOU HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THIS DEPOSIT IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DECLARED FOR TAXATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ABSENCE OF AN Y PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- WILL ALSO BE CONSIDER ED FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME. 6.1 SINCE, THE APPELLANT-HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF AFORESAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 49,22,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO, SB-1673 MAI NTAINED WITH THE BHAGYODAYA CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLIT E, AHMEDABAD, THE SAME ARE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS. 20,00,000/- MADE ON 19-05 -2007, THE SAME IS ALSO CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ADDITION OF RS.69,22,000/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AND CHEQUE DEPOSITS BY HOLDING THAT THESE DEPO SITS WERE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THIS ADDITION WAS NO T MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT IS ENHANCED BY RS. 69,22,000/- IN VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) CON FERRED BY THE PROVISIONS SEC. 251 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS O F THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIRBHERAM DALURAM 224 ITR610 (S C), HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COIIRT IN THE CASE OF SMT. VIJAYKUNVERBA VS. CIT, H ON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KASHINATH CANDIWALA 280 ITR 3 18 (AIL.) AND HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOEL DIE CAST LTD. VS. CIT(A) AND ANR. 297 ITR 72 (P&H). SINCE, THE INCOME OF RS. 69,22,000/- WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. NOTICE U/S.271(1)(C) IS SEPARATELY BEING ISSUED. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CAREFULL Y. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BAN K ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION ON RECORD. SIMILARLY, CE RTAIN AMOUNT OF DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY CHEQUE ALSO REMAIN ED UNEXPLAINED AS NOTED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIR MED THE ADDITION OF RS.27,75,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS AND ALS O ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.69,22,000/- AS NOTED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REBUT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN SUCH ACTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PERVERSITY IN THE FINDING NOTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 799/AHD/2014 IS DISMISSED EX-PARTE . ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.798/AHD/2014 AY 2008- 09 8. IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRI EVED BY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT ARISING FROM APPELLATE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IN ITA NO.799/AHD/2 014. 9. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL FROM THE ASSESSEE , WE ENDORSE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) TOWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y WHICH READS AS UNDER:- '2, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 49,22,000/- AND CHEQUE DEPOSITS OF RS, 20,00,600/-. THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUS E, NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME WAS ISSUED ON 19.08.2011 TO BE COMPLIED ON 0 2 09.2011. HOWEVER, SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE COULD, NOT BE SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AS HE HAD CHANGED HIS MAILING ADDRESS. NO INFORMATION FOR CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRE SS WAS GIVEN TO THIS OFFICE. THE APPEAL WAS THEN AGAIN FIXED TO BE HEARD ON 29.09.20 11 VIDE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 15.09.2011. THIS NOTICE OF HEARING ALONGWITH THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SER VICE ON THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUESTED TO SERVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING ALONGWITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BEFORE 22.09 .2011 AS THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 29.09.2011. THE NOTICE OF HEARING ALO NGWITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT ON HIS NEW MAILING ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS AGAIN REQUE STED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 TO SERVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING ALONGWITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME DATED 19.12.2011 ON THE ASSES SES BY 04.01.2012. THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEME NT OF INCOME WERE SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT ON 26.12.2011 AT HIS PRESENT MAILING ADDRESS AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING AND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME AS SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO SENT FOR RECORD. THE PRESENT MAILING ADDRESS WAS ALSO COMMUNICATED. A FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING ALONGWITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME WAS AGAIN SE NT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.2011 TO RE-COMMUNICATE THE ASSESSEE, THE DATE OF HEARING DATED 04.01.2012 AND THE SAME WERE SENT ON THE PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE: APPELLANT; HOWEVER, AS USUAL NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDE D NOR EVEN ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - SOUGHT, THUS, AS DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NOBODY HAD ATTENDED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX-PARTS, V IDE ORDER DATED 04-01-2012, OH THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WERE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE INCOM E WAS ENHANCED. 3.0 APROPOS TO THE ABOVE, DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ISSUED AN ENHANCEMENT NOTICE WHICH ALSO REMAINED UN COMPILED. RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE APPEAL ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF INC OME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- '...THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT WAS CALLED FOR F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, II WAS NOTICED ON EXAMINATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTA INING A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. SB-1673 WITH THE BHAGYODAYA COOPERATIVE SANK LTD., SNYAMAI ROW HOUSE , SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAD MADE THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 9,80,000/- AND RS. 9,50,000/- IN J UNE, 2007, RS.15,00,000/- ON 256/09/2007, RS.15,00,000/-ON 04.10.2007 AND RS.2,0 00/- ON 04/10/2007. APART FROM IT, THE APPELLANT HAD A/SO DEPOSITED RS, 20,00 ,000/- BY CLEARING ON 10,05.2007. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 49,22,000/- AND-THE CHEQUE, DEPOSITS OF RS, 20,00,0 00/~ BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO ADDITION OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS OF RS, 49,22, 000/- AND THE CHEQUE DEPOSITS OF RS. 20,00,000/- WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. TO FAX THE AFORESAID, UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, A SHOW CAUSE N OTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT; THE RELEVANT PORTION O F WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'PLEASE REFER TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NO, SB-1673 MAIN TAINED IN THE BHAGYODAYA CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, MANAVIR NAG AR, SATELLITE, AFIRNEDABACF- 380015. 2.0 IT WAS NOTICED ON SCRUTINY OF YOUR BANK AC COUNT THAT YOU HAVE MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AS UNDER: 06/2007 9,70,000/- 06/2007 9,50,000/- 26/09/2007 15,00,000/- 04/10/2007 15,00,000/- 04/10/2007 2,000/- RS.49,22,000/- ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - 3.0 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE A SSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.12.2010 HAD NOT CONSIDERED THES E DEPOSITS. 4.0 YOU ARE THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO PLEASE SHOW CAU SE AS TO WHY NOT YOUR INCOME IS ENHANCED BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.49, 22,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.49,22,000/- AS THER E IS NO EXPLAINED SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE APPAR ENTLY SEEM TO BE FROM YOUR UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. LIKEWISE, THERE IS A CHEQUE D EPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/- ON 19.05.2007. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPO SIT. WHETHER YOU HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THIS DEPOSIT IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DECLARED FOR TAXATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ABSENCE OF AN Y PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- WILL ALSO BE CONSIDER ED FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME. 6.1. SINCE, THE APP HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF AFORESAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.49,22,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO.SB-1673 MAINT AINED WITH THE BHAGYODAYA CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLIT E, AHMEDABAD, THE SAME ARE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/- MADE ON 19-05- 2007. THE SAME IS ALSO CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. IN VIEW THEREOF , THE ADDITION OF RS.69,22,000/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AND CHEQUE DEPOSITS BY HOLDING THAT THESE DEPO SITS WERE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THIS ADDITION WAS N OT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INCOME OF THE APP, THE INCOME OF THE APP IS ENH ANCED BY RS.69,22,000/- IN VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) CONFERRED BY THE PROVISION S OF SEC.251 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIRBHERAM DALURAM 224 ITR 610 (SC), HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.VIJAYKUNVERBA VS. CIT, HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KASHINATH CANDIWALA 280 ITR 318 (ALL.) AND HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOEL DIE CAST LTD. VS. CIT(A) AND ANR. 297 ITR 72 (P&H). SINCE, THE INCOME OF RS.69,22,000/- WAS NOT DISCLOS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED FOR THE YUC, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 4.0 THUS SEEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE UNDISCLOSED A ND UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF RS.69,72,000/- REPRESENTED BY CASH / CHEQUE DEPOSIT S IN THE SAVING A/C. NO.SB 1673 MAINTAINED WITH BHAGYODAYA CO.OP. BANK LTD, SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLITE, ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - AHMEDBAD. ENUMERATED BELOW ARE DETAILS OF NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) INITIATED AGAI NST HIM. SR.NO. SECTION DT OF NOTICE DT OF COMPLIANCE REMAR KS 1. 271(1)(C) 04-01-2012 30-01-2012 SERVICE EFFECTED PERSONALLY ON 25-01- 2012 THROUGH AOS OFFICE AS EVIDENCED BY TEAR OFF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP. PERUSAL THEREOF INDICATED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY ONE SHRI AMRUTLAL PATEL ON 25-01-2012. NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY REPLY RECEIVED. 2 271(1)(C) 07-03-2012 16-03-2012 SERVICE EFFECTED THROUGH SPEED POST AS EVIDENCED BY TEAR OFF. PERUSAL THEREOF INDICATED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY ONE SHRI B S JAYNETA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP. NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY REPLY RECEIVED. 3 271(1)(C) 03-05-12 18-05-2012 SERVICE EFFECTED PERSONALLY ON 15-05- 2012 THROUGH AOS OFFICE AS EVIDENCED BY TEART OFF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP. PERUSAL THEREOF INDICATED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY ONE SHRI AMRUTLAL PATEL ON 15-05-2012. NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY REPLY RECEIVED. ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 12 - 5.0 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY NON COOPERATIVE AND IS APPARENTLY NOT INTEREST IN DEFEN DING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.271(1)(C) AGAINST HIM. THIS OBSERVATION IS FU RTHER REINFORCED BY THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE APP ON HIS GIVEN A DDRESS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APP CANNOT FORWARD THE ARGUMENT OF NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED NOTICES. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) AGAINST THE ASSES SEE WERE INITIATED VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-01-2012. WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECT ION 275 OF THE I.T.ACT, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE F.Y. (IN THIS CASE BY 31- 03-2012) OR WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE M ONTH IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED (IN THIS CASE BY 30-07-2012) WHICHEVER CO MES LATER. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE WILFUL ABSENCE AND NON COMPLIANC E TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE CURRENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, I AM LEFT WITH THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE OF CONCLUDING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ON REC ORDS. 6. IN THE CASE OF DHAREMNDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, HO NBLE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT TO BE PROVED. IT WAS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT THAT MENS REA OR GUILTY MIND AN ESSENTIAL FOR CRIMINAL L IABILITIES, IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITIES. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HOWEVER EXPLAINED IN CASE OF RAJASTHAN SPG & WVG MILLS 224 CTR 1 THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC EXERCISE AND THAT PECULIAR FACTS OF TH E CASE WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR TAKING A DECISION ON THE MATTER. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RE LIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. HONBLE APEX COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART, IT WAS UPTO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPEND ITURE WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). I F WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, THEN THE CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE TH E CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY A.O. FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY U/S.171(1)(C). THAT IS NOT CLEARLY THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATU RE. IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT.LTD.327 ITR 5 10. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS, S UPRA. THUS, IT WAS ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 13 - OBSERVED THAT IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE T O OFFER ANY EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM BEING FOUND FALSE, PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM. HOWEVER, IF AN EXPLANATION IS OFFERED BY A N ASSESSEE, MERE FAILURE ON ITS PART OF SUBSTANTIATE IT WILL NOT BE WARRANT TO AN PENALTY, IF THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE, AND ALL THE FACTS RELATED TO THE SAME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM IN THE RETURN. THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED AS A RESU LT OF REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, PROVIDED HIS EXPLANATION IS SHOWN TO BE BONAFIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. IF T HE EXPLANATION IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONAFIDE, THE EXPLANA TION 1 OF SEC. 271(1)(C) WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LIABL E TO THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY. IT IS TRUE, THAT MERE SUBMITTING THE CLAIM WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSES SEE NEEDS TO BE BONAFIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LAW IS MALA FIDE, THE EXPLANATION 1 OF SEC 271(1)(C) WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND WERE TO DISA DVANTAGE TO THE ASSESSEE...... 7.0 A PERUSAL OF THE JUDICIAL CITATIONS DISCUSSED A BOVE, INDICATES THAT IN THE CASES OF PENALTY WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS AS TO WH ETHER ANY MALAFIDE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO A ASSESSEE OR NOT. IN THE INSTANT CA SE, IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS UNDISCLOSED AND UNE XPLAINED INCOME OF RS.69,22,000/- REPRESENTED BY CASH / CHEQUE DEPOSIT S IN THE SAVING A/C.NO.SB 1673 MAINTAINED WITH BHAGYODAYA CO-OP. BANK LTD, SH YAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD WAS NOTED BY THIS OFFICE. PRO CEEDINGS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 WERE INITIATED. THE ASSES SEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DEFEND ITS CASE IN RESPECT OF SAID ENHANCEMENT OF H IS INCOME. FACTS OF THE CASE DISCUSSED IN PARA-3 ABOVE CLEARLY INDICATE THA T THE AMOUNT OF RS.69,22,000/- REPRESENTED BY CASH / CHEQUE DEPOSIT S IN THE SAVING A/C.NO.SB1673 MAINTAINED WITH BHAGYODAYA CO OP BANK LTD, SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.69,22, 000/- TO A.Y. 2008-09. I AM THEREFORE SATISFIED, THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.69,22,000/- ON WHICH PEN ALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY TO BE LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER:- 1. ASSESSED INCOME AS PER CIT(A)S ORDER RS.98,13,53 3/- 2. CONCEALED INCOME RS.69,22,000/- ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 14 - 3. ASSESSED INCOME MINUS CONCEALED INCOME (1 MINUS 2) RS.28,91,533/- 4. TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME RS.32,77,837/- 5. TAX ON ASSESSED MINUS CONCEALED INCOME RS.9,25,049 /- 6. DIFFERENCE (4 MINUS 5) RS.23,62,788/- 7. MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED RS.23,52,788/- 8. MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED RS.70,58,364/- I THEREFORE LEVY A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.23,52,788/ - BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE DN AS PER LAW AND THEN SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON THE ASSESSEE ALONGWIT H A DEMAND NOTICE. 10. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF T HE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY DECLINE TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. 11. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.7 98/AHD/2014 IS DISMISSED EX-PARTE . 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED EX-PARTE . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 / 11 /2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 11 /2017 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.798 & 799/AHD/201 4 SAMIRSINGH C. VAGHELA VS. CIT(A) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 15 - !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 8.11.17 (DICTATION-PAD 7- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.11.17 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.21.11.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.11.17 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