Applitech Solutions Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DY.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 954/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 95420514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND SHRI BHAVNESH SA INI, JM) ITA NO.954/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2003-04 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD., 503, PARITOSH, NEAR DARPAN ACADEMY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD VS THE D. C. I. T. (OSD), RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AABCA 8332 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. M. MEHTA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. GUPTA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 29-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14-10-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABAD DATED 26-03-2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL THAT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WAS BASED NOT ON FACTS BUT ONLY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND WAS NOT VALID. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.4,83,92,457/- SIMPLY FOLLOWIN G HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 2 01 WHEN THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS PER HONBLE ITATS ORDERS DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2006 IN ITA NO. 385 TO 389/AHD/2006. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CANNOT STAND AND DESERVES TO BE REVERSED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.79,43,558/- SIMPLY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHEN THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS PER HONBLE ITATS ORDERS DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2006 IN ITA NO. 385 TO 389/AHD/2006. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CANNOT STAND AND DESERVES TO BE REVERSED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,15,86,025/- SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS IN THE PAST WITHOUT GIVING INDEPENDENT FINDINGS, WHEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED WHOLE OF THE ADDITION. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CANNOT STAND AND DESERVES TO BE REVERSED TO THAT EXTENT. ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 3 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) AS DESCRIBED HEREINABOVE HAS RESULTED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HAS IN TURN RESULTED ALSO IN DENIAL OF JUSTICE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR THE POINT TAKEN IN THE PRECEDING GROUNDS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT STAND AND DESERVES TO BE REVERSED. 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FULLY ACCEPTING AND ALLOWING ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE HIM WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION NOTED THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE PROCEEDINGS U /S 133A OF THE IT ACT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS WERE SHAM IN SO FAR AS THE SAME WERE FROM RAHUL IFOTECH PVT. LTD. AND VADANA COMPUTERS PVT. LD. WHICH WERE HELD TO BE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHO HAVE DENIED SALES OF COMPUTERS TO THE ASSESSEE. BY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2000- 01 DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, CONFIRMED THE D ISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST THE AO FOLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 I N WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT LOAN WAS PAID TO RAHUL INFOTECH PVT. LT D. AND VADANA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. AND THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES DIR ECTLY BY THE BANK AND BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE GENUINE PURCHASE OF THE COMPUTERS WAS DOUBTED, THEREFORE, INTEREST WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 4 FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 CON FIRMED THE ADDITION. AS REGARDS CASH CREDIT, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) NOTED THAT CASH CREDITS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN A SUM OF RS.5,53,22,463/ - FROM RAHUL INFOTECH PVT. LTD. , VANDANA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD., D ESIGN TECH COMPUTERS AND SOFT DESIGN. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE FOUND SHAM. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE TRANSACTIONS WITH TWO PARTIES NAMEL Y RAHUL INFOTECH PVT. LTD. AND DESIGN TECH COMPUTERS WERE IN RESPECT OF DEBIT BALANCE, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE AND TH EIR OTHERS DETAILS LIKE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER WERE GIVEN. THE LEARN ED CIT(A), THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE DEBIT BALA NCE IN THE CASES OF RAHUL INFOTECH PVT. LTD. AND DESIGN TECH COMPUTERS AND IN CASE THE SAME WERE DEBIT BALANCE, ADDITION WOULD BE DELETED. FOR OTHERS, THE COMPANIES WERE FOUND TO BE FAKE COMPANIES OWNED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS WER E CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. WITH REGARD TO THE DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF LIQ UIDATION PROCEEDINGS WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT BEC AUSE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE ATTENDED AS NO INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THEREFOR E, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON THIS ISSUE DISMISSED THIS GROUND BEING GENERAL IN NATURE AND FURTHER DESPITE GIVING OPPORT UNITY, NO DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED. ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 5 3. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE STATED IN THE APPEAL PA PERS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED TO IT ON 05-04-2007 AND THE APPEAL IS FILED ON 30-03-2009. ACCORDING TO THE OFF ICE THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 665 DAYS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND PETITION IS FILE D FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOMESTIC COMPANY WHO DERIVED INCOME F ROM BUSINESS AS DEVELOPER OF SOFTWARE, CUSTOMIZED SOFTWARE SOLUT IONS AND PROVIDED I. T. CONSULTANCY. IT IS STATED THAT HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 20-07-2005 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.116/2 002 PASSED ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE LIQUIDATING THE SAME. AG AINST THE SAID WINDING UP ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED MISC. PETITION NO.82 TO 85/2005 AND INTERIM RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 29-09-2005 WHEREBY THE WINDING UP ORDER WAS S TAYED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WAS DISTURBED AND FACED PROBLEMS IN MANAGING THE AF FAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE SERIES OF ADVERSITIES RIGHT FROM 20-04-2005. IN THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS U/S 178 OF THE IT ACT. IN TURN, THE AO ADDRESSED ALL THE NOTICES AND LETTERS TO THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT ON 27-03- 2006 IN THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. ON RECEIPT OF THE PAPER S FROM THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) AND AGAIN THE ORDER REMAINED WITH THE OFFICIAL LIQU IDATOR AND AFTER RECEIPT OF THE SAME APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. IT IS, THEREFORE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE LOST THE TRACK B ECAUSE OF THE ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 6 LITIGATION GOING ON AT DIFFERENT STAGES INCLUDING T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271 (1) (C ) OF THE IT ACT DT. 05-03-2009, CALLING FOR THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, T HE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH REMAINED IN BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). I T IS, THEREFORE, STATED THAT DUE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WENT IN LIQUIDATION AND HEAVY LITIGATION, T HE APPEAL COULD NOT BE PREFERRED IN TIME. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 2002-03 ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24-04-2006 IN ITA NO. 385 TO 389/AH D/2006 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) F OR DECISION AFRESH. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HA VE FOLLOWED ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YEARS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN WH ICH THE MATTER IS ALREADY RESTORED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS, THER EFORE, PRAYED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE ABOVE AVERMENTS CONTA INED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALSO FILED THE DETAILS IN THE PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE APPEAL WIT HIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE WINDING UP ORD ER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, LETTER OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND FURTHE R CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND OTHERS AND PUBL ICATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT CALLING OBJECTION IN SETTING ASIDE OF THE WINDING UP ORDER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ULTIMATELY THE HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 08-01-2008 SET ASIDE THE WINDING UP AND DISPOSED OF THE ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 7 PETITION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE REFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE EXISTENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS IN DOUBT, THEREFORE, APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. THESE FACTS EXPL AINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING TH E APPEAL IN TIME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS, 167 ITR 471 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS FOR DOING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. COURT SHOULD HAVE A PRAGMATIC AND LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE CONDONI NG THE DELAY. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ON THE SUBSTA NTIAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AND THE MATTE R IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1507/AHD/2005 AND 1681/AHD/2005 VIDE ORDER DATED 15-10-2005, THEREFORE, EVEN ON MERIT THE ASSE SSEE HAS A GOOD CASE FOR REMAND. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET ANY FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. THEREFORE, MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ISSUES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED IN THE MATTER. THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT HOWEVER, IN CASE DELAY IS CONDONED, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-CONSIDERAT ION OF THE ISSUES. ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 8 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE WENT IN LIQUIDATION AT THE INITIAL STAGE BECAUSE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED IN THE MATTER. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ATTACHED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ULT IMATELY AFTER VARIOUS ROUNDS OF LITIGATIONS AND TAKING STEPS IN T HE MATTER WINDING UP WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN JANUARY, 2008. THESE FACTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PREFERRING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS I N LIQUIDATION BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE MOVED THE APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A ND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE HAVE TO TAKE PRAGMAT IC AND LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE MATTER. F URTHER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE MA TTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN THE CA SE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1507/AHD/2005 AND 1681/AHD/2005 (SUPRA) RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO F OR RECONSIDERATION. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE REDONE BY THE AO AS REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS NOT PROVID ED TO THE ASSESSEE. IF LEGIBLE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS AN D STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED ON 25.3.2002 THEN VERY LIT TLE ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 9 TIME IS LEFT FOR ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS REPLY AND T O CARRY OUT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE TWO PERSONS WHO HAVE N OW DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY SALES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES FROM RIPL AND VCPL, THEREFORE, TO SUPPORT THESE PURCHASES ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO WHO HAS ALREADY RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THESE TWO PERSONS AND WHO HAVE DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY SALE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THUS PRIMARILY IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE P ERSONS BEFORE THE AO SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO CONFRONT THESE TWO PARTIES. IT WILL BE A STAGE OF RE-EXAMINATION. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ALSO EXERCISE THEIR POWERS TO EN FORCE THE PRESENCE OF THESE TWO PERSONS AND ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE FULL SUPPORT BY WAY OF PROVIDING T HE ADDRESSES, MOBILE NUMBERS AND THEIR OTHER WHEREABOU TS SO AS TO ENABLE THE AO TO SERVE THE SUMMONS ON THEM . IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO EXTEN D FULL SUPPORT TO THE AO TO ENABLE HIM TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE TWO PERSONS. MERELY PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE AO AND TO SIT QUIETLY WILL NOT BE IN ITS INTEREST. IF NECESSARY THE AO CAN ISSUE COMMISSION TO THE OTHER OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN ALSO GO AND CONFRONT THE TWO PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECI DING AFRESH. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW SINCE THE MAJORITY ADDITIONS WERE BASED ON THE FIND INGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN WHICH THE MATTER IS REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFO RE, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . WE ACCORDINGLY, CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS ACCORDINGLY AL LOWED. ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 10 8. NOW, CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPREC IATION AND DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF THE APPELLA TE ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE VIDE ORDER DATED 15-10-2010 AND IN PARA 6 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESTORING THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE AO. THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS YEAR WERE M/S. RAHUL I NFOTECH PVT. LTD. (RIFL) AND M/S. VANDANA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. (VCPL). THEREFORE, THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSID ERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. AS REGARDS CASH CREDITS, THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE IS ALREADY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE DEBIT BALANCE AND FOR OTHER TWO CREDITORS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAM ED IN THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND DESPITE THIS POINT WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT P ROPERLY ADJUDICATED. CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSE E UNDERGOING IN LITIGATIONS AND FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LATER ON REVIVED FROM WINDING UP AND FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FR AMED IN THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WOULD PROVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 DATED 15-10-20 10 (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R ESTORE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSI DERATION OF THE ITA NO. 954/AHD/2009 APPLITECH SOLUTIIONS LTD. VS DCIT (OSD) RANGE-I, AH MEDABAD 11 ISSUE. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD