Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1168 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 5 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-09-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
Not Allotted
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
18-04-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.966/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) RAJESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL ZAVERIPURA NR.LIC OFFICE, 2 ND LINE STATION ROAD, UNJHA DIST. MEHSANA 384 170 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PATAN 384 265 [PAN NO. AMUPP 7438 H] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y .K. GAI K A, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANAND KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 06/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS)-7, AHMEDABAD [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006 -07 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN WITH T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR IS BAD IN L AW AS WELL AS FACTS ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. (1) LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.44,55,520 MADE BY A.O. TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK A/CS. IN AS MUCH AS, 1.1. THE TRANSACTION IN BANK A/C WERE NOT DONE BY ASSESS EE. CASH BELONGED TO INVESTORS IN SHARES. - 2 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 1.2. THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/CS IS ONLY IN 13 DAYS I.E. EARNING OF RS.3,41,763 PER DAY, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE. ASSESS EE DID NOT SALE ANY ASSET. 1.3. CHEQUES WERE ISSUED FROM CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C TO SHARE BROKERS INDICATE PURCHASE SHARES FOR INVESTORS. (2) LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN REJECTING THAT BANK TR ANSACTIONS ARE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND BUSINESS PROFIT @ 25% MAY BE TAXED. (3) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES FOR LIBERTY TO AMEND, MODIFY AN D ADD ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR FURNISH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN APPLICATION FOR REVISED AND ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS HAS ALSO BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.06.2018 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MATTER BEFORE THIS LD. TRIBUNAL WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE O RDER PASSED BY ID. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 ARE NOT VALID. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE BY LD. AO U /S 144/148, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REASONS RECORDED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 44,55,520/- BY REJECTING SUMMARILY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY APPELLANT'S EMPLOYER, SH. PRAGNESHBHAI K. PATEL, WH O OWNED UP THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A/C OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT SUBJECTING SH. PRAGNESHBHAI K. PATEL TO CROSS EXAMINATION. - 3 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 44,55,520/- AS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK A/C OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. C1T(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ABOVE ADDITION BY SUMMARILY REJECTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, ADMITTED BY HIM, AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE A PPELLANT WITHOUT NECESSARY INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. C1T(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT SP ECIFYING SECTION, WHETHER SECTION 68 OR 69, UNDER WHICH ADDITION WAS SOUGHT T O BE MADE. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ABOVE ADDITION WHEN ONUS LYING ON THE AP PELLANT WAS DISCHARGED BY HIM. 9. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF R S. 44,55,520 MADE BY AO TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BA NK A/C'S. IN AS MUCH AS- (I) THE TRANSACTION IN BANK A/C'S WERE NOT DONE BY ASSESSEE. CASH BELONGED TO INVESTORS IN SHARES. (II) THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C'S IS ONLY IN 13 DAYS I.E. EARNING OF RS. 3,41,763 PER DAY, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE. ASSESS EE DID NOT SALE ANY ASSET. (III) CHEQUE WERE ISSUED FROM CASH DEPOSITED IN BAN K A/C TO SHARE BROKERS INDICATE PURCHASE SHARES FOR INVESTORS. 3. IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION, THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS AS FOLLOWS: THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE HAD NOT RECEIVED REASON S RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE GROUNDS RAISE D. HOWEVER, THE REASONS WERE RECEIVED BY AR STATIONED AT PATAN IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE 2018 AND WERE SENT TO THE COUNSEL IN DELHI ON 08-06-2018. THE COUNSEL SH. D.C . AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE HAS ADVISED TO RAISE A GROUND AGAINST REASSESSMENT BASED ON REA SONS SO RECORDED. THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR WHICH APPELLANT CRAVE S LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADMIT THE SAME. SINCE, THERE WERE ORIGINAL GROUNDS FILED WITH APPEA L, THEY WERE REVISED ON 21-02-2018 AND A CAUSE IS ARISEN TO FILE ANOTHER ADDITIONAL GR OUND, DUE TO RECEIPT OF REASONS - 4 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 RECORDED NOW, THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RE-SERI ALIZE AND RENUMBER ALL THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED. 4. THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS CASE IS THAT THROUGH A IR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 4,42,920/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK LTD. UNJHA. THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION FOLLOWED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 29.3.2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 02.07.2013 A LONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRES ASKING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE, HOWEVER, NOT ATTENDED UPON WHICH LETTERS DATED 16.09.2013 & 11.10.2013 FOLLOWE D BY SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2013 WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE PERSONALLY ON 05.12.2013 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONTENTS:- SIR/MADAM, SUB : SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 200 6-07 IN YOUR CASE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REG. PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T.ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28.03. 2013 AND DULY SERVED UPON YOU ON 29.03.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NO TICE, NEITHER YOU HAVE FILED RETURN OF INCOME NOR WAS FILED ANY SUBMISSION IN RE SPECT OF THE ABOVE NOTICE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 02.0 7.2013 AND LETTERS DATED 16.09.2013 & 11.10.2013 WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON YOU TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS CALL FOR. AGAIN, NEITHER YOU HAVE ATTENDED NOR WAS FILED ANY SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE NOTICES. YOU ARE THEREFORE RE QUESTED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT SHOULD NOT BE L EVIED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT AND LETTERS DATED 16.0 9.2013 & 11.10.2013. SINCE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID NOTICES, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS NO WAY EXCEPT TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE 1 PROPOSE TO MADE ADDITION/DIS ALLOWANCE ON FOLLOWING LINE. 1. ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS OTHER CREDITS IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK LTD. (A/C.D NO.01791000035238 & 017910000 39574). - 5 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 2. ADDITION OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM HDFC BANK LTD. YOU ARE FURTHER REQUESTED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY PENALT Y U/S.271F OF THE I.T.ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FAILURE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME. YOUR REPLY SHOULD REACH THIS OFFICE ON OR BEFORE 12 .12.2013. IF YOU FAIL TO FURNISH THE REPLY ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THIS MATTER, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE FINALIZED ON THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 4.1. SINCE NOTHING WAS FORTHCOMING, THE LD. AO ASSE SSED RS.44,58,520/- AS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSIT AGAINST WHICH APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISS UE REGARDING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS IN RESPECT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THAT THE AO HAD INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BAN K WITH HDFC BANK LTD., UNJHA AMOUNTING TO RS.44,42,920/-. ACCORDINGLY, TH E AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED BY NOTICES FOLLOWED U/S.143(2 ) AND 142(1). DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE A NY SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT FILE A RETURN IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S.142(1) DOES NOT MAKE THE PROCEEDINGS INVALID. I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE AO HAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD THEREFORE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASST.YE AR 2006-07 WAS JUSTIFIED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. BEFORE US, THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS TAKEN US T O PAGE NO.17 OF THE PAPER-BOOK BEING THE REASONS OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF T HE ACT ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 - 6 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 1. INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH ANNUAL INFORMAT ION RETURN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SHOWED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4442920/- IN A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THIS FACT SHOWS ASSESSEE IS HAVING RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 RELEVANT FOR AY 2005-06. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE TH AT TO THE EXTENT OF TRANSACTING OF RS.4442920/-, INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS SU CH ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2006- 07 IS REQUIRED TO BE REOPENED IN TERMS OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF T HE IT ACT SINCE THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, I AM SATISFIED THAT INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME IS FIT CASE FOR ISSUING NOT ICE U/S.148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 6.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENT ION BEFORE US ON THIS ASPECT IS THIS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR REOPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS CO-ORDINATE B ENCH PASSED IN THE MATTER OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VS. ITO [2015] 53 TAXMANN.COM 366 (DELHI TRIB.). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRY U/S.131 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THE REVENUE HAS PROCEEDED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY REOPE NING ASSESSMENT ADOPTING A SHORT- CUT METHOD, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WRONG EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AND VITIATED THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 7. THE LD.DR HOWEVER, ON THE CONTRARY RELIES UPON T HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT, T HE REOPENING WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF THE COGENT INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO. 7.1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. AR. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THAT PARTICULAR CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THA T OF THE INSTANT CASE IN HAND. THE QUANTUM IS ALSO FAIRLY LESS BEING RS.1,02,400/- THA T THAT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HERE IN THE INSTANT CASE TO THE TUNE OF RS .44,42,920/-. IT APPEARS FROM THE - 7 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 RECORDS THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN U/S.148 OF THE A CT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILED OF. THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UP ON IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. 7.2. IT FURTHER REVEALS FROM THE RECORDS THAT TH E REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING CLEARLY SPEAKS ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.44 ,42,920/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2005-06. APART FROM THAT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2006-07 RELEVANT TO FY 2005-06. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO SHOWS PRIMA FACIE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS SUFFICIENT FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE UNABLE TO APP RECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE O F THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. NO IRREGULARITIES OR ERROR IS FOUND IN THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE JUSTIFYING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WHICH CALLS FOR INTERFERENC E BY US. THUS, THIS PARTICULAR GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LEG TO S TAND UPON, HENCE DISMISSED. 7.3. WE, NOW THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE MERIT OF THE MATTER. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT BEFORE THE LD.APPELLATE AUTHORITY TWO AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED, ONE AFFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY SHRI PRAGNESHBHAI K.PATEL BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS. 7.4. THE LD.ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL TAKEN US TO THOSE AFFIDAVITS AT PAGE NOS.3 0 TO 34 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLANT AND PAGE NOS.35 TO 37 OF THE PAPER-BO OK, AFFIRMED BY SHRI PRAGNESHBHAI K.PATEL WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: AFFIDAVIT I RAJESH BABULAL PATEL, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ZAVERIPARU, STATION ROAD, 'UNJHA, SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AS UNDER. - 8 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 I WAS BORN ON 18/03/1968 AND STUDIED UPTO 12 TH STANDARD AT UNJHA, DIST. PATAN. I WAS BELONGING TO ECONOMICALLY WEAKER FAMILY AND THEREFORE AFTER 1 2 TH I DID NOT STUDY FURTHER AND STARTED JOB AT THE AGE OF 18 YEARS. INITIALLY I STARTED JOB IN 198 5-86 AS SHOP ASSISTANT IN 1 GRAIN SHOP IN MARKET YARD. (GANJ BAZAR), UNJHA DIST. MEHSANA (GUJARAT). AND 1 SERVED FOR 5 YEARS, AT THAT TIME MY SALARY WAS RS.2,500/- TO RS.3,000/- PER MONTH. THER EAFTER, I STARTED JOB IN TRANSPORT COMPANY AND WORKED FOR ABOUT 7 YEARS AND MY SALARY WAS RS.4 ,500/- TO RS.5,000/- PER MONTH. THEREAFTER I STARTED JOB WITH OTHER SHARE BROKERS AND I WAS EA RNING RS.8,500/- PER MONTH. PRAGNESHBHAI PATEL IS SUB BROKE IN UNJHA AND MY CLOSE FRIEND SIN CE MANY YEARS AND HE OFFERED ME TO GIVE ME MORE SALARY OF RS.15,000/- PER MONTH PROVIDED I A LLOW HIM TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN MY NAME TO BE OPERATED BY HIM. PRAGNESHBHAI WAS MY INTIMATE FRIEND I HAD NO DOUBTS IN HIM THAT HE WILL EVER DEFRAUD ME. FURTHER I WAS ALWAYS IN NEED OF MO NEY BECAUSE I BELONGED TO ECONOMICALLY WEAKER FAMILY AND I HAD HARD TIME TO MEET MY ENDS. THEREFORE, I ALLOWED PRAGNESHBHAI TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNT IN MY NAME WITH HDFC BANK UNJHA BRANCH BEARING A/C. NO.1791000035238 AND 01791000039574. I HANDED OVER THE PRE-SIGNED CHEQUE BOOKS TO PRAGNESHBHAI AND HE OPERATED THE ACCOUNTS. I NEVER INQUIRED ABOUT THE ACCOUNTS O PERATED BY HIM. THEREAFTER, TILL 2013 I.E. FOR 7 YEAR, 1 DID NOT HEAR OR RECEIVED MY INQUIRY EITHER FROM INCOME TAX OR SEBI, HENCE I WAS SATISFIED THAT PRAGNESHBHAI HAD OPERATED MY ACCOUNT LAWFULLY. BUT IN THE END OF THE YEAR 2013, I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INQUIRIN G ABOUT CASH TRANSACTIONS AND BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. I STATE ON OATH THAT I WAS ONLY NAME LENDER FOR BOT H THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK MENTIONED ABOVE. THE TRANSACTIONS OF CASH AS WELL C HEQUE EITHER CREDIT OR DEBIT DO NOT BELONG TO ME AT ALL. THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE BY MY FRIEN D PRAGNESHBHAI PATEL, WHO WAS DOING SHARE BROKING BUSINESS. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF PRAGNESHBHAI K. PATEL WAS TO FIND OUT INVESTORS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN EQUITIES/ SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPAN IES. IN TURN HE INTRODUCED THESE INVESTORS TO THE REGISTERED BROKERS. FOR THESE ACTIVITIES HE USED TO GET COMMISSION FROM BROTHERS. THE INVESTORS BELONG TO UNJHA AS WELL .AS FROM THE SURROUNDING VI CINITY OR VILLAGES OF UNJHA. UNJHA IS BIG MARKET PLACE KNOWN FOR GRAINS, SPIRES, PARTICULARLY JEERA. VARYALI AND ISABAGUL. THE PEOPLE OF UNJHA AND OF SURROUNDING VICINITY AND FARMERS OF VI LLAGES EARN HANDSOME INCOME AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN HIGH YIE LD EQUITY/ SECURITIES. IN THE YEAR 2005 TO 2008 THE EQUITY MARKET WAS BULLISH I.E. RISING WHEREBY E VERY DAY THE INDEX OF SHARE MARKET WAS INCREASING WHICH ATTRACTED THE INVENTORS TO INVEST IN SHARE MARKET. THE INVESTORS MOSTLY HAVE MONEY, IN THE FORM OF CASH WHEREAS THE BROKERS DID NOT ACCEPT CASH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND SEBI (SECURITY & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA) RULES. TO EARN COMMISSION FROM BROKERS PRAGNESHBHAI PLANNED TO OPEN BANK ACCO UNTS IN MY NAME AND IN NAME OF FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO DEPOSIT CASH OF INVESTORS AND THEN TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO BROKERS. THEREFORE, THE CASH, CHEQUES EITHER DEBIT OR CREDIT APPEARING IN BANK A/C MENTIONED DO NOT BELONG TO ME. I HAD NEVER SEEN IN MY LIFE RS.45 ,00,000/-. I HAD EARNED IN MY LIFE RS.2,500/- TO RS.15,000/- PER MONTH TILL DATE. THERE IS NO QUESTI ON OF OWNING THIS MUCH HUGE FUND BY ME. 1 FURTHER STATE ON OATH AS UNDER: WHY NOTICE U/S.148 NOT REPLIED : - 9 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 I AM STAYING AT UNJHA, WHICH IS RURAL AREA AND IN UNJHA THERE IS NO INCOME TAX OFFICE, I DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) SINCE HIS INCOME W AS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT. I DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME TAX ACT WHEREBY ON RECEIPT OF N OTICE U/S 148, I THOUGHT THAT, SINCE I HAVE NO TAXABLE INCOME, THE NOTICE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ME. I CONSULTED THE LOCAL ADVOCATE AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 148. THE LOCAL ADVOCATE ADVIS ED THAT I AM NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE REPLY OF THIS NOTICE, SINCE L DID NOT HAVE TAXABLE INCOME. THE AD VOCATE HAD FURTHER EXPLAINED ME THAT NOTICE U/S 148 IS TIME BARRED AS IT IS RECEIVED AFTER 6 YE ARS I.E. 6 YEARS FROM F.Y. 2005-06 (NOTICE RECEIVED ON 29/03/2013). THEREFORE, I DID NOT FILE RETURN U/S 148 AS WELL REPLIED TO OTHER NO TICES OF A.O. FURTHER MY FRIEND PRAGNESHBHAI ALSO EXPLAIN ED ME THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN ABOVE BANK A/C DO NOT BELONG TO YOU AND THEREFORE, YOU NEED NO T WORRY AND THE NOTICE IS TIME BARRED. THEREFORE, I DID NOT REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND SUBSEQUENT NOTI CES. AO PASSED THE ORDER EX PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY ADDING RS.44,58,520/- O N THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. AOS FAILURE THE A.O. HAD PASSED THE ORDER IN ABSENCE OF MY REPL IES AS WELL INFORMATION FROM ME. AO HAS TOO ASSESS THE INCOME AFTER VERIFICATION AND SATISFACTI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REALLY EARNED INCOME OR NOT. IN MY CASE A.O. HAD NOT DONE ANY SURROUNDIN G INQUIRES TO MAKE BEST JUDGMENT WHETHER I HAD EARNED INCOME OF RS.45 LACS OR NOT. ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION WHICH IS DEAD INFORMATION OR DEAD DATA (PAST DATA) A.O. CONCLUDED THAT IT IS MY INCOME. IF I HAD THIS MUCH INCOME 1 WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED INCOME TAX RETURNS FO R MANY YEARS REGULARLY, WHICH I DID NOT. EVEN IN ABSENCE OF MY INCOME .TAX RECORDS IN I.T. O FFICE, A.O. DID NOT HAVE DOUBT THAT AIR INFORMATION IS NOT MY REAL INCOME. HERE A.O. WAS RE QUIRED TO MAKE DEEP INQUIRIES. BECAUSE, THERE IS QUITE POSSIBILITY THAT AIR INFORMATION MAY BE WRONG FOR THE REASONS THAT OPERATOR FILLING THE INFORMATION ON COMPUTER MIGHT HAVE ENTERED WRON G PAN, MIGHT HAVE DONE ARITHMETIC ERRORS BY ADDING ZEROS TO 100, INFORMATION OF OTHER ASSESS ES MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED IN DIFFERENT ASSESSEE. THERE ARE ALL POSSIBILITIES OF HUMAN ERRO RS OR ERROR BY DEFAULT. A.O. HAD WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY SORT OF INQUIRY STRAIGHT, WAY ADDED TO MY INCOME AND ASSESSED TO TAX. THIS IS AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. PAPER BOOK OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES : IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE , I AM SUBMITTING HEREWITH PAPER BOOK WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CONTAINING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES AFTER ANALYZING BANK TRANSACTIONS IN ABOVE ACCOUNTS. THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND TH EREFORE, THE SAME ALONG WITH MY THIS AFFIDAVIT MAY PLEASE BE FORWARDED TO THE CONCERN A. O., PATAN WARD FOR VERIFICATION, EXAMINATION AND FURTHER INQUIRIES AND SUBMIT REMAND REPORT TO H ON .CIT(A) -7, AHMEDABAD, SO AS TO RENDER JUSTICE TO ME ON THE GROUND OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND PRAY. MY AFFIDAVIT MAY BE CONSIDERED OVER AND ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED SUPRA , AS AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES,1962. - 10 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 I HAVE PREPARED THIS AFFIDAVIT WITH SOUND MIND AND HAVING COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS OF THE CASE. AND WHATEVER STATED ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORREC T TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. PLACE : UNJHA SD/- DATE : 21.9.2015 (RAJESHBHAI BABULAL PATEL) AFFIDAVIT I PRAGNESHBHAI K, PATEL, AGED ADULT, RESIDING AT M OTOMADH, MOLOT CHORA, AT-VILLAGE- UNJHA, DIST. MEHSANA SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AS UNDER, I AM DOING .SHARE BROKING BUSINESS AT UNJHA, DIST. PATAN (GUJARAT) AS UNREGISTERED SUB BROKER OF VARIOUS REGISTERED BROKERS. MY MODUS OPERANDI I S, I FIND OUT INVESTORS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN EQUITIES/ SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPAN IES. I, INTRODUCE THESE INVESTORS TO THE REGISTERED BROKERS. FOR THESE ACTIVITIES 1 USE TO G ET COMMISSION FROM BROKERS. THE INVESTORS BELONG TO UNJHA AS WELL AS FROM THE SURROUNDING VIC INITY OR VILLAGES OF UNJHA. UNJHA IS BIG MARKET PLACE KNOWN FOR GRAINS, SPICES, PARTICULARLY JEERA, VARYALI AND ISABAGUL. THE PEOPLE OF UNJHA AND OF SURROUNDING VICINITY AND FARMERS OF VI LLAGES EARN HANDSOME INCOME AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN INVESTING HIGH YIELD EQUITY/SECURITIES. IN THE YEAR 2005 TO 2008 THE EQUITY MARKET WAS BULLISH I.E. RISING WHEREBY EVERY DAY THE INDEX OF SHARE MARKET WAS INCREASING WHICH ATTRACTED THE INVESTOR TO INVEST IN SHARE MAR KET. THE INVESTORS MOSTLY HAVE MONEY IN THE FORM OF CASH WHEREAS THE BROKERS DID NOT ACCEPT CAS H AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AS WELL SEBI (SECURITY & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA) RULE S. TO EARN COMMISSION FROM BROKERS I PLANNED TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN NAME OF MY FRIEND RAJESH BABULAL PATEL AND OTHER RELATIVES TO DEPOSIT CASH OF INVESTORS AND THEN TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO BROKERS. ACCORDINGLY I OPENED THE SAVING BANK A/C. WITH HDFC BANK, STATION ROAD UNJHA BRANCH IN THE NAME OF MY FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF THE FRIEND/RELATIVE A/C. NO. 1. RAJESH BABULAL PATEL RAJESH BABULAL PATEL 01791000035238 01791000039574 2. CHETANBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL 1791000035245 ALL THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS WHERE OPERATED BY ME AND I U SED TO OBTAINED THEIR SIGNATURE ON BLANK CHEQUES IN ADVANCE. THE CASH RECEIVED FROM INVESTOR S WERE DEPOSITED IN THESE ACCOUNTS AND THEREAFTER, SAME WERE TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING C HANNEL BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO OTHER SAVING ACCOUNTS AND ULTIMATELY TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF BROKER NAMELY SUNIDHI AND FINANCE OF - 11 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 MUMBAI. I WAS GETTING COMMISSION FROM BROKER END IN TURN I WAS PAYING SALARY TO RAJESHBHAI BABULAL PATEL WHO WAS SERVING UNDER ME AS ASSISTANT . RAJESHBHAI B. PATEL WAS RECEIVING SALARY OF RS. 8,500 PER MONTH FROM OTHER BUT SINCE HE ALLO WED ME TO OPERATE HIS ACCOUNT I USED TO PAY HIM RS. 15,000 PER MONTH IN THE FORM OF SALARY. RAJESHBHAI BABULAL PATEL IS CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE AN D HE STUDIED UPTO 12 TH STANDARD. THEREAFTER, HE STARTED JOB IN GRAIN MARKET (GANJ BAZAR), TRANSP ORT AND IN SHARE MARKET WITH BROKER AT UNJHA. HIS SALARY WAS RANGING FROM RS.2,500/- TO RS.8,500/-. FROM THE YEAR 1985 TO 2008. HE NEVER HAD ANY INCOME EXCEEDING RS.15,00.0/- PER-MON TH IN HIS LIFE. THE BANK A/C NO.1791000035238 AND 01791000039574 WITH HDFC BAN K , STATION ROAD, UNJHA BRANCH WERE OPENED BY ME AND WERE OPERATED BY ME, TO FACILITATE THE INVESTORS WHO HAD CASH AND NO CHEQUES. THE SAID MODUS OPERAND! WAS ADOPTED BY ME TO EARN B ROKERAGE FROM BROKERS. THE OTHER ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK MENTIONED ABOVE WERE ALSO O PERATED BY ME FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE INVESTORS TO DEPOSIT CASH IN THESE ACCOUNTS AND TRANSFER A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO BROKER- SUNIDHI SECURITIES & FINANCE. THEREFORE, TH E TRANSACTIONS OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C NO. 1791000035238 AND 01791000039574 ARE NOT BELONG ING TO RAJESHBHAI BABULAL PATEL, IT IS NOT HIS CASH MONEY. HE NEVER HAD ANY INCOME IN HIS LIFE EQUIVALENT TO CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C. THESE CASH MONEY BELONGED TO INVESTORS AND NOT TO RAJESHBHAI AND AS WELL NOT TO ME. I HAVE PREPARED THIS AFFIDAVIT WITH SOUND MIND AND HAVING COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS OF THE CASE. AND WHATEVER STATED ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRE CT TO THE BEST OF-MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. PLACE: UNJHA SD/- DATE :21.9.2015 (PRAGNESH PATEL ) 7.5. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D BEFORE US THOSE TWO THE AFFIDAVITS, ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THE AMOU NT WAS DEPOSITED AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI PRAGNESHBHAI K.PATEL OF WHOSE MONEY A S CLAIMED TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY NOT CONSI DERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH THE SAME WERE BEFORE HIM BEFORE COMING INTO A CONCLUSI ON AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND MAKING ADDITION THEREOF. 8. THE LD.DR ON THE CONTRARY HAD TAKEN US TO THE O BSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PA RTIES. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD.AO ON HIS REMAND REPORT IS MENTIONED IN THE APPE LLATE ORDER AT 6.2. IS AS FOLLOWS: - 12 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 4. AS REGARDS, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS EMPLOYER SH. PR AGNESH B PATEL ARE ARISING FROM AN AFTER THOUGHT AND IT IS A CONCOCTED STORY. IF THIS WAS TH E REAL FACT, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE SAME BEFORE THE A.O. ITSELF DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REPRESENT HIS CASE EITHER PERSONALLY OR T HROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS REQUIRED IN THE IT, ACT, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION ARE TOTALLY FALSE AND FABRICATED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PRAGNESH PATEL IN HIS A FFIDAVIT HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE OPERATED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MONEY BELONGED TO THE INVESTORS AND NOT TO HIM NOR TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER NO DETAILS OR LEDGERS OF THE INVE STORS WERE SUBMITTED BY SHRI PRAGNESH PATEL IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THIS IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. MERE STATEMENT ON AFFIDAVIT CA NNOT PROVE THAT ALL THAT IS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IS TRUE. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PRODUCE D ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM IN ABSENCE OF WHICH THIS OFFICE IS UNABLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND OFFER ANY COMMENTS WHATSOEVER. HAD THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE SO CALLED INVESTORS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. COULD HAVE MADE INV ESTIGATION AT THAT TIME. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO RAISE THIS TYPE OF A LLEGATIONS. EVEN IN THE PLAIN READING OF RULE 46A, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CAN ONLY BE ADMITTED ON FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES : A) WHERE THE ITO HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDE NCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFF ICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE C) WHERE THE ITO HAS MADE THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y IN THE PRESENT CASE, NONE OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN IN THIS RULE ARE COVERED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO PRO VIDE THE REASONS WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. FURTHER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT UNJHA IS A RURAL AREA AND THERE IS NO INCOME TAX OFFICE THERE AND TH US HE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. HERE IT IS CRUCIAL TO SUBMIT THAT PATAN INCOME TAX OFFICE IS ONLY 30 KMS. AWAY FROM UNJHA TOWN AND UNJHA IS NOT A RURAL AREA. THE UNJHA CITY BEING THE BIGGEST JEERA APMC MARKET IN ASIA AND THERE ARE MANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND I NCOME TAX PRACTITIONERS WHO ARE REGULARLY PRACTICING THERE. UNJHA IS IN NO MEANS A RURAL AREA AND THAT FAR AWAY FROM PATAN THAT THE ASSESSEE FACED ANY HARDSHIP TO APPEAR BEFO RE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. THEREFORE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT AS NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE IS THERE ON RECORD TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO KINDLY BE UPHELD.' - 13 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 8.1. FURTHER THAT, THE AO HAS OBJECTED THE AFFIDAV IT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY THE EXPLANATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SAID TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 8.2. WE HAVE PERUSED THOSE AFFIDAVITS ON RECORDS. WE FIND THOSE PARTIES WERE NOT EXAMINED. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE LD.AO EVEN AT THE REMAND STAGE ON THE AFFIDAVIT FIL ED BY THE PARTIES. WHEN THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE REALLY GERMANE TO THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE MATTER AND NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING ADDITION, THE LD.CIT(A ) WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE AO IN IGNORING TO CONDUCT ENQ UIRY ON THOSE AFFIDAVITS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN A ROUTINE MANNER. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE FIND IT PROPER TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.AO TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY ON THIS AFFIDAVITS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE DEPOSITORS OF THOSE AFFIDAVITS . WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATION MADE ABOVE AND ALSO UP ON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCES ON RECORDS AS ALSO THE EVIDENCES WHICH AS SESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER. WE, HOWEVER, MAKE IT CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL ALSO CO- OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE AS AND WHEN REQUIRED WITHO UT ASKING FOR ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/09/2018 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 09 /2018 .., . ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS - 14 - ITA NO.966/AHD/2016 RAJESHKUMAR B.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-7, AHMEDABAD 5. !'# , $ , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. #() *+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 6.9.18 (DICTATION-PAD 19- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.9.18 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Income Tax Act 2025
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026