Shri Aniruddha Rameshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 323/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0027 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 44AD; 153A; 132; 144

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T(SS).A. NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2013-14) SHRI ANIRUDDHA RAMESHBHAI PATEL A-5, ASEEM BUNGLOW, NR. SARKARI TUBWELL, BOPAL, AHMEDABAD-380058 / VS. ACIT CC - 2(4), AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFVPP4754J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL THAKKAR, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR, CIT. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 18/09/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/09/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARISE FROM THE COMMON ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AGAINST RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR DIF FERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS TABULATED BELOW: IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 2 - IT(SS)A NOS. NAME OF ASSESSEE AY CIT(A)S ORDER DATED AOS ORDER DATED AOS ORDER UNDER SECTION 323/AHD/16 SHRI ANIRUDDH RAMESHBHAI PATEL 2007-08 07.09.2016 17.02.2015 143(3)/144 R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 324/AHD/16 -DO- 2008-09 -DO- -DO- -DO- 325/AHD/16 -DO- 2009-10 -DO- -DO- -DO- 326/AHD/16 -DO- 2010-11 -DO- -DO- -DO- 327/AHD/16 -DO- 2011-12 -DO- -DO- -DO- 328/AHD/16 -DO- 2012-13 -DO- -DO- -DO- 329/AHD/16 -DO- 2013-14 -DO- -DO- 143(3)/144 R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 2. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013 -14. AS CLAIMED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AN D COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THER EFORE ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY COMM ON ORDER. 3. IT(SS)A NO.323/AHD/2016 RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 I S TAKEN AS A LEAD CASE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATION. IT(SS)A NO.323/AHD/2016 4. IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION: GROUND NO.1 BOTH, THE LD A.O. HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/ S 144 OF IT ACT AND LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E SAME WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS AND DETAILS WHICH WERE ON RECORDS. GROUND NO.2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED A. O. HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING VARIOUS DETAILS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT MAKING ANY COMMENTS/PASSING SPEAKING ORDER AND THUS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 3 - GROUND NO.3 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED A. O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDI TION IGNORING ALL THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN HAND AND LD CIT(A)-13 HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. GROUND NO.4 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED A. O. HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTIN G ADJOURNMENT ASKED BY COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE FOR SPECIFIC REASON EVEN WHE N MORE THAN 45 DAYS WERE LEFT AT THAT POINT OF TIME FOR LAST DATE OF TI ME BARRING ASSESSMENT AND LD. CIT(A)-13 HAS DISREGARDED THE ISSUE WHILE A DJUDICATING THE APPEAL. GROUND NO.5 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE DISMISSING THE PRAYER FOR ADDITION AL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AND WITHOUT FULLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PRAYER FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS MADE BEFORE HIM AS THERE WA S ADDITION OF ENTIRE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEME NT OF THE APPELLANT. GROUND NO.6 THE LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE LOOKING TO THE QUA NTUM OF HUGE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. PURELY ON SURMISE AND THE REBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO.1 BOTH THE LD A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION O F RS.18,12,204/- U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING T HE FACTS AND DETAILS ON RECORDS. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUN AL TO URGE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF RULE 11 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 WHICH READS AS UNDER: THAT LD A.O. HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FRAM ING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 TO A.Y. 2011-12 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATE RIAL FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH OPER ATION. IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 4 - 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 14.09.2018 ALONG WITH PETITION S EEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL B Y 27DAYS. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS STATED TO BE ASSOCIATED TO MENTAL DEPRESSION RESULTING FROM PARALYSIS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OWI NG TO HUGE INCOME TAX DEMAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO AFFIRMED ON OATH THA T HE WAS NOT EVEN LEFT WITH PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF SMALL DELAY AND REASONS CITED FOR SU CH DELAY. WE FIND THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE EXISTS FOR CONDONATION OF SMA LL DELAY AS NARRATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. KEEPING IN MIND THE BROAD PRINCI PLES LISTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE LOCUS CLASSICUS CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. 167 ITR 471 (SC) , THE SMALL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESERVES T O BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE PROCEEDED ON MERITS. CON SEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 7. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) SUFFERS FROM THE INFRINGEMENT OF PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES HAVE PASSED NON- SPEAKING ORDERS AND HAVE OVERLOOKED THE DETAILS/INF ORMATION OF SUBSTANTIVE NATURE. THE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WITHOUT GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE AND IN DISREGARD OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LEARNE D AR ALSO ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMIT TED THAT WHILE THE CIT(A) ITSELF ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT ADDITIONAL GRO UND WAS RAISED VIDE APPLICATION DATED 05.09.2016 TO SUBMIT THAT ADDITIO N MADE TOWARDS DEPOSITS IN BANK PERTAINING TO ASSESSEES WIFE IS N OT SUSTAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF SUC H SUBSTANTIVE NATURE IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 5 - SUPPORTABLE FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD O F THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AT ALL. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSIONS OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS (I) SUMMARY OF CASH TRANSACTION FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD, (II) EXPLANATION OF CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD, (III) EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT PERTAINING TO WIFE AND (IV) P ROOF OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.80C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR S UBMITTED THAT ALL THESE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES ARE GERMANE TO THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEE N SHUNNED OF BY THE CIT(A) ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE LEARNED AR NEXT S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS ALS O VITAL AND CENTRAL TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES ON ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER DELIBERATION. DW ELLING FURTHER, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH ACTION UNDER S.1 32 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF INDIA GREEN R EALITY PVT. LTD. ON 15.03.2013. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS A BROKER W ITH THE GROUP AND HENCE, WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER SEARCH ALONGWITH THE OTHER CASES OF THE GROUP. CONSEQUENTLY, A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U NDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT DATED 15.03.2013 WAS RECORDED ON OATH. THE LEARNED AR ADVERTED THE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED ALONGWITH VOLU MINOUS PAPER BOOK (AT PAGE NOS. 87-94 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND SUBMITTE D THAT A QUESTION WAS ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS MOVABLE ASSET, CA R, VEHICLES, IMMOVABLE ASSETS, HOUSE PROPERTY ETC. AND RENOVATIO N EXPENSES THEREON. THE ADDITIONS ON THE OTHER HAND WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT ALL. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT IS CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER. THE LEARNED AR HEAVILY RELIED UPON CERTAIN EXCEL SHEETS FILED WITH THE AO ON 23.02.2015 GIVING EXPLANATION FOR BANK ACCOUNT ENTRIES AS WELL AS ANOTHER REPLY DATED 26.02.2015 FILED ON THE SAME DAY TO CONTEND T HAT THE ASSESSEE, IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 6 - PERTINENTLY, WAS COVERED BY THE PRESUMPTIVE TAXATIO N PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANCY OF BANK TRA NSACTIONS IS THUS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IN THIS PERSPECTIVE. THE LEARN ED AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NEITHER CONSIDERED DETAIL S NOR CONSIDERED THE FACT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 44AD OF THE AC T IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER QUIPPED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OMITTED TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITION GROUNDS. THE LEARNED AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT FIVE OUT OF SEVEN YEARS IN APPEAL (2007-08 TO 2011- 12) WERE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION IN THIS FIRST FIVE YEARS COULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH IS ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LEARNED A R REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF PR.CIT VS. ANIL BHOLABHAI PATEL (TAX APPEAL NO.375 OF 2017 ORD ER DATED 30.08.2017) AND PR.CIT VS. RSA DIGI PRINTS (TAX APP EAL NO.469 OF 2017 & ORS. ORDER DATED 06.09.2017) FOR THE PROPOSI TION THAT PRESENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH I S A SIN QUA NON FOR MAINTAINABILITY OF ADDITIONS UNDER S.153A OF THE AC T. THE LEARNED AR THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE CI T(A) REQUIRES TO BE STRUCK DOWN OR ALTERNATIVELY MATTER SHOULD BE RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND LAW GOVERNING THE FILED. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LEARN ED DR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY AND WILLFU LLY NEGLECTED TO RESPOND TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND PLAYED HIDE AN D SEEK WITH THE DEPARTMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. ASHOKJ I CHANDUJI THAKOR (TAX APPEAL NO.710 OF 2018 & ORS. ORDER DATED 27.06 .2018), THE ORDER IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 7 - OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE ITAT . THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME UNDER S.132(4) OF TH E ACT. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE BY COGENT EVIDENCE WHEN INNUMERABLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED AND HE CANNOT NOW LOOK UPON THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR RESCUE ACT. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED AND REFERENCES MADE TO THE VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER B OOK IN TERMS OF RULE 18(3) OF THE ITAT RULES. ON PERUSAL OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE UNDER S.144 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT BY THE AO WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.19,21,700/- AS AGAINS T THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.2,92,000/- CONCERNING AY 2007-08. AGA INST THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER S.144 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TOWARDS NON- INCLUSION OF TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO WIFE IN HIS ASSESSED INC OME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT LEAVE OF THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE AS NARRATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE C IT(A) DECLINED TO GRANT ANY RELIEF TO ASSESSEE OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY INSIPID AND NON-COOPERATIVE IN THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO APPALLED WITH THE PERSISTENT FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FIR ST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONSEQUENTLY REJECTED THE P RAYER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 10. NOTABLY, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT RENDERED ANY DECISI ON ON MERITS. IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 8 - 11. IT IS THUS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND W HICH POINTS OUT WRONG INCLUSION OF TRANSACTIONS OF OTHER INDIVIDUAL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON AT ALL. THI S HAS PRIMA FACIE CAUSED SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. NO REASO NS HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED FOR NON-ADJUDICATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS . THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE PREMI SE OF CONDITIONS OF RULE 46A HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN STRENUOUSLY POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE. THE AO HAS OMITTED TO EXAMINE THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. COUPLED WITH THIS, DETAILS SHOWING EXP LANATION FOR BANK TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AU THORITIES WHILE DETERMINING THE ISSUE EX PARTE . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT IN A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE ACTION OF THE AO TOWARDS ADD ITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT EXCEPT THE STATEMENT UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND AND THEREFORE , THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SU STAINABLE IN LAW. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, SEVERAL ISSUES EMERG ES RANGING FROM SUSTAINABILITY OF ADDITIONS UNDER S.153A PROCEEDING S; ADDITIONS IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, IF APPLICABLE; AD DITIONS BASED ON TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF WIF E AS CLAIMED ETC. THEREFORE, WHILE APPRECIATING THE CONCERN OF REVENU E TOWARDS LACKADAISICAL AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE A SSESSEE TOWARDS QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT PERMI T US TO SHUN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEVOID OF MERITS ALTOGETHER . NEEDLESS TO SAY, THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE STATUTE. THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE THE CLAIM REGARDING NON-TAXABILITY AT ANY STA GE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL GROUN D BEFORE US FOR NON TAXABILITY OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL EXCEPT STATEMENT UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT KNOWN TO US IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 9 - WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STAT EMENT WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR N OT. THUS, IN THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY ONCE AGAIN. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL FULLY CO-OPERAT E WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO WITHOUT ANY DE MUR FAILING WHICH THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) AND THE AO IS SET ASIDE AND CANCELLED AND ALL THE ISSUES CONNECTE D TO THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DETER MINATION OF INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY, HOWEVER, HASTEN TO ADD THA T ALL THE CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT AR E KEPT OPEN WITHOUT ANY FETTERS AND OUR OBSERVATIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXPRESSION ON MERITS IN ANY MANNER. 13. BEFORE WE PART WITH, PERTINENT HERE TO REFER TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR (SUPRA) RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE MATERIALLY DIF FERENT QUA THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) ON MERITS WHER EAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, MANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS CERTIFIED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH HA S NOT BEEN TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. COUPLED WITH THIS, MANY LEGAL ISSUE S TOWARDS TAXABILITY OF INCOME OF OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND MAINTA INABILITY OF ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH IN IN QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES OBJECTIVE FACTUAL ANALYSIS. THEREFORE, OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARISING IN T HE GIVEN SET OF IT(SS)A NOS. 323 TO 329/AHD/16 [SHRI ANIRUDDHA R. PATEL VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 10 - FACTS, IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW, DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.323/AHD/2016 FOR AY 2007-08 IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 14. ALL OTHER CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF ASSESSED INCOME IN PARITY WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.323 /AHD/2016 FOR AY 2007-08 (SUPRA). 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 25/09/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/09/2018