Vimal Muljibhai Gabani, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Surat

ITA 936/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0968 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.936/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-2003 VIMAL MULJIBHAI GABANI 7-A, TRIKAMNAGAR SOCIETY-1 LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD SURAT 395 006. PAN : ABPPG 8114 P VS ITO, WARD - 9(4) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N.VEPARI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. MEENA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/07/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 31.1.2013 PASSED FOR THE A SSTT.YEAR 2002-03. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.AO HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIOLATION TO DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN VI DE ORDER DATED 21.5.2010. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.3.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.86 ,796/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CARRIED OUT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 1 33A ON THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA ON 11.3.2005. SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA IS A PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO HAS CREATED LA RGE NUMBER OF CAPITAL BUILD UP CASES. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIV ED FROM THAT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REOPENED, AND NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 16.9.2007 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.9.2005. ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 2 THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AND ULTIMATELY DISPUTE TR AVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.491-492 & 494/AHD/2008. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF ALL THESE APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 21.5.2010. THE TRIBUNAL H AS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BY GIVING FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: 5. BEFORE US LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDE TO HIM THE COPIES OF THE REASONS RE CORDED AND HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MEET OUT THOSE REASONS AT THE INIT IAL STAGE. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N.DRIVE SHAFT (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO ( 2003) 259 ITR 90 (SC). 6. LD. SR-DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE REST ORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROVIDING OF THE COPI ES OF REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE INVITING HIS OBJECTION THEREON. AFT ER RECEIVING OBJECTION, AO WILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ACCEPTING OR REJECTIN G THE OBJECTION. IN CASE OBJECTIONS ARE ACCEPTED THERE NO FURTHER ACTIO N FOR ASSESSING ALLEGED INCOME-TAX WOULD BE TAKEN. OTHERWISE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AFRESH. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AS INDICATE ABOVE. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO ON 28.12.2011. THE LD.AO DID NOT SUPPLY COPY OF THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK ME THROUGH COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.12.2011 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE WITH COPY OF THE REASON, AND ONLY THEREAFTER, HE CAN PROCEED WITH PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. COPY OF THIS LETTER IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO INSTEAD OF PROVIDING COPY OF THE REASONS, ADJUDICATED THE ALLEGED OBJECTION OF THE A SSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, WROTE A LETT ER DATED 27.12.2011 POINTING OUT THE AO THAT YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED COPIES OF THE REASONS AND THE LETTER DATED 12.12.2011 WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM FOR FURNISHIN G THE REASONS. THIS LETTER ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 3 DOES NOT CONTAIN OBJECTIONS AGAINST REOPENING. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AO D ID NOT ADHERE TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATIO N, THE LD.AO HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE ASPECTS, AND THEREAFTER PASSED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 5. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS, I DEE M IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE LETTER DATED 12.12.2011 AND 27.11.2011. BOTH T HESE LETTERS OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: DECEMBER 12,2011 7014/TT-1360 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 9(4) SURAT. RE: INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT OF SHRI VIMAL MULJIBHAI GABANI FOR 002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ASSESSMENT YEARS. PAN: ABPPG8114P SIR, (1) MY ABOVE CLIENT IS IN RECEIPT OF NOTICES U/S. 1 42(1) OF THE ACT ON 08.12.2011 REQUIRING HIM TO APPEAR ON 13.12.2012. (2) THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE PURSUANT TO ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.05.2010 SETTING ASIDE THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS. RELEVANT PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY WHICH THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE SET ASIDE IS REPRODUCED. 'AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE RESTOR E THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROVIDING OF THE COPI ES OF REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE INVITING HIS OBJECTION THE REON. AFTER RECEIVING OBJECTION, AO WILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE OBJECTION. IN CASE OBJECTIONS ARE ACCEPTED THERE NO FURTHER ACTION FOR ASSESSING ALLEGED INCOME-TAX WOULD BE TAKEN. OTHERW ISE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AFRESH. A S A RESULT, APPEALS ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 4 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AS INDICATE ABOVE.' (3) FROM THE ABOVE YOU WILL FIND THAT THE FIRST THI NG THAT IS NECESSARY IS TO PROVIDE COPIES OF REASONS RECORDED THEREAFTER INVIT ING OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, AFTER RECEIVING THE OBJECTIONS THE AS SESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED FURTHER IF AND ONLY IF HE DOES NOT ACCEPT T HE OBJECTIONS. THEREFORE, KINDLY SEND COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS. (4) FURTHER, THESE PROCEEDINGS HAD STARTED BECAUSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AT THE PREMISES IN CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA , CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE PREPARED PROFIT & LOSS A/C. AND BALANCE SHEET SHOWING THE BUILDING UP OF CAPITAL FROM YEAR TO YEA R IN THE NAME OF SEVERAL ASSESSES. IN CASE YOU ARE LIKELY TO RELY ON THE ABO VE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA'S PREMISES, COPIES THEREOF ARE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO DEAL WITH THEM. SIMILARLY IF SOME KIND OF STATEMENT OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA IS RECORDED AND IF THAT IS LIK ELY TO BE USED, COPY THEREOF IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED. I AM MENT IONING THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE INITIATED THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AT A VERY LATE DATE LEAVING HARDLY ANY TIME; THEREFORE, WITH THE FIRST NOTICE SO RECEIVED I HAVE MADE THIS REQUEST SO THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER DELAY IN THIS REGARD. (5) UNLESS THESE PAPERS ARE AVAILABLE IT WOULD NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ON 13.12.201 1 WHEN THE HEARING IS FIXED. KINDLY, THEREFORE, EXPEDITE THE ABOVE. THANKING YOU, I REMAIN, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (R.N.VEPARI) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DECEMBER 27,2011 2002-03/TT-1448 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(4), SURAT. RE: INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 5 SHRI VIMALBHAI MULJIBHAI GABANI FOR A.Y. 2002-03 PA N: ABPPG8114P SIR, (1) IN THIS CASE, THE HON. TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS CONSOL IDATED ORDER IN ITA NOS.491-492 & 494/AHD/2008 SET ASIDE THE ABOVE ASSE SSMENT WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS AS CONTAINED IN PARA 7 OF ITS ORDER. PAR A 7 IS REPRODUCED. 'AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE RESTOR E THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROVIDING OF THE COPI ES OF REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE INVITING HIS OBJECTION THE REON. AFTER RECEIVING OBJECTION, AO WILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE OBJECTION. IN CASE OBJECTIONS ARE ACCEPTED THERE NO FURTHER ACTION FOR ASSESSING ALLEGED INCOME-TAX WOULD BE TAKEN. OTH ERWISE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AFRESH. A S A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AS INDICATE ABOVE.' (2) DESPITE THE CLEAR CUT DIRECTIONS BY THE H ON. TRIBUNAL, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN COPY OF REASONS FOR REOPENING. IN YOUR LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 ALONGWITH WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DA TED 23.12.2011 YOU HAVE REFERRED TO LETTER NO.TT-1360 DATED 12.12.2011 AS OBJECTIONS RAISED, HI FACT, THAT IS A LETTER (COPY ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READ Y REFERENCE) TO REQUEST YOU TO ISSUE REASONS FOR REOPENING. IT IS ONLY AFTER RE CEIPT OF REASONS FOR REOPENING THAT IT WILL BE POSSIBLE FOR MY CLIENT TO FILE OBJECTIONS. YOUR LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ORDER AGAINS T OBJECTIONS. IN YOUR LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 IN PARA 4 YOU HAVE MENTIONE D AS REASONS FOR REOPENING. I BELIEVE THAT ENTIRE PARA UPTO 10 APPEA R TO BE REASONS FOR REOPENING. IF REASONS FOR REOPENING ARE DIFFERENT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND GIVEN ME COPY THEREOF. (3) I HEREBY FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE AFORESAID PARA CONSIDERING THEM AS REASONS FOR REOPENING. (I) PARA 4 IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY OPERATIONS CONDUCTED U/S. 133A OF THE ACT IN CASE OF SHRI PART KAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY THE DDIT (INV.)-II, SURAT O N 11.03.2005. THEREFORE, IF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE BASED ON SUCH PAP ERS, I WOULD REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME COPIES OF SHRI PANAKAJ DANWA LA'S STATEMENT AND I WOULD ALSO REQUIRE HIS CROSS EXAMINATION. (II) FROM THE ABOVE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PRO CEEDINGS HAVE STARTED BASED ON THE SURVEY ACTION BY DDIT (LNV.)-II IN CAS E OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO REOPEN ONLY BASED ON THAT. SECTION 147/148 ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 6 REQUIRES THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AP PLY HIS MIND AND TO INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVE AT A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. I WOULD REFER TO THE JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. [325-ITR-285]. THAT IS ALSO A CA SE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 ON THE BAS IS OF INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE DDL THE TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE ENTIRE PR OCEEDINGS AND THE HIGH COURT REFUSED TO INTERVENE WHAT EMERGES FR OM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT IS THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE EVEN INCLUDING DDI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVING AT A BELIEF T HAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THIS GROUND THE REOPENED PRO CEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DROPPED. (III) IN PARA 4 YOU HAVE MENTIONED ABOUT IMPOUN DED FILE NO.3931 MAINTAINED BY SHRI DANAWALA OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE NUMBER OF FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN WHICH ARE DISPUTED AND, T HEREFORE, I ALSO REQUEST COPY OF THE ABOVE FILE. (IV) IT IS ALSO MENTIONED AT THE END OF PARA 5 THAT ' THE CAPITAL SO CREATED HAS BEEN UTILISED VERY SYSTEMATICALLY AND I N A PLANNED MANNER BY MEMBERS OF THE GROUP IN DIFFERENT YEARS, THE SAM E IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICI ARIES IN THE YEAR OF UTILISATION BY THEM.' FROM THIS IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT REOPENING IS MADE TO ADD INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. IN THIS REG ARD I REFER TO THE JUDGEMENT OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BULLION INVESTMENT & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. [29-DTR-323]. IT HAS H ELD THAT NO REOPENING CAN BE DONE FOR MAKING PROTECTIVE ADDITIO N. ON THAT GROUND, THE REOPENING WAS QUASHED. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS HERE. (V) IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHETHER SUCH ADDITION S HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE 1 HANDS OF SUCH BENEFICIARIES AS MENTIONED THER EIN AFTER SUCH A LONG SPELL OF TIME. IF SO, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSAR Y TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. IF IT IS NOT DONE, SO FAR, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT SERIOUS IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE INCOME REALLY BELONGS. THEREFORE, ENTIRE EXERCISE OF REOPE NING IS FUTILE AND SHOULD BE DROPPED. (4) APART FROM THE ABOVE ON MERITS, I SUBMIT T HE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS MENTIONED BY YOU. (I) AS REGARDS A SUM OF RS.24,00,000/- THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2011 FOUND BY THE DEP ARTMENT FROM THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE'S CAPITAL JUMPED BY RS.24,00,000/- AS UNDER:- ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 7 CAPITAL ON 01.04.2001 . RS.29,45,960/- CAPITAL ON 31.03.2001 (AS PER FILE WITH SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA NOT SHOWN OR COPIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE RS. 5 ,45,960/- DIFFERENCE RS.24,00,000/- IT IS THIS DIFFERENCE WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL ON 31 .03.2001 WAS IN FACT RS.29,45,960/- WHICH STANDS REFLECTED IN THE ASSETS IN THE FORM OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND LOANS WITH THE VARIOUS ENTITIES. COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET IS ENCLOSED TO SHOW THE ABOVE. (P.I). ULTIMATELY WHAT IS CAPITAL IS ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. IF THERE ARE ASSETS WHICH REPRESENTS C APITAL THEN THAT CAPITAL IS GENUINE. THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2001 CLEARLY SH OW SUCH ASSETS, HI THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION D OES NOT ARISE. IF, HOWEVER, ANY ADDITION IS TO BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE S HOULD BE FURNISHED COPY OF THE SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET IN THE FILE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. (II) AS REGARDS RS.52,000/- BEING AMOUNT UTILI SED BY ADVANCE TO VIMAL FABRICS, THIS AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SH EET AS ON 31.03.2002 AND COPY THEREOF IS ENCLOSED (P.2). ONCE THE AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET HOW IT CAN BE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED UTILIZAT ION WHEN THE SOURCE COMES OUT CLEARLY IN. THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ADDITION OF SO CALLED ENHANCEMENT IN THE CAPITAL ON ONE HAND AND MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UTILIZATION OF SUCH FUNDS. T HIS WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION AND THIS AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. FURTHER, THIS IS NOT UTILIZATION OF CPITAL. THIS IS DEBIT BALANCE OF SAL ARY RECEIVABLE BY ASSESSEE SALARY INCOME IS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF VIMAL FABRICS IS ENCLOSED (P.3). (III) AS REGARDS BALANCE OF SHRI HARI FABRICS A MOUNTING TO RS.43,300/- THIS IS GIVEN BY SHREE HARI FABRICS WHOSE CONFIRMAT ION IS ENCLOSED (P.4). SHREE HARI FABRICS HAD NOT GIVEN ANY CASH BUT HAD G IVEN MOTOR CYCLE AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CONFIRMATION AS ALSO BALANCE SHEE T. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE QUESTION OFBRINGING ANY AMOUNT AT ALL. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITION MAY NOT BE MADE. (5) FROM THE ABOVE IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT NO ADDI TION CAN BE SUSTAINED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGAL ISSUES AND MERITS. THANKING YOU, I REMAIN, YOURS FAITHFULLY (R.N. VEPARI) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ITA NO.936/AHD/2013 8 6. THE AO HAD PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ALLEGED OBJEC TION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING WITHOUT SUPPLYING COPY OF THE REA SONS AND WITHOUT HAVING THE OBJECTIONS. HIS ORDER DATED 1.12.2011 IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT, THE J URISDICTION OF THE AO IS LIMITED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF HIGHER APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE AO TO SUPPLY COPY OF THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER, HE WOULD INVITE OBJECTION S OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING. AFTER RECEIVING THE OBJECTION, THE AO W OULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE OBJECTION. HIS ASSESSME NT ORDER IS DEPENDED UPON SUCH AN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO DID NOT SUPPLY THE REASONS NOR ADJUDICATED THE OBJECTIONS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS MENT ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE AND QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/08/2016