M/s. Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 333/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8852 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR VAKIL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) IT (SS) A NOS. 333, 334. 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 3 40, 341,342,343, 344, 345 AND 346/AHD/2010 (AY: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2 006-07, 2007-08, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-0 7 AND 2007-08) M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, KAYCREST, OPP. GUJARAT GAS CO. LTD., NR. PARIMAL CROSSING, AHMEDABAD VS THE A. C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD PA NO AAACN 5181 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI DEEPAK SONI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SAMIR VAKIL, DR O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST TWO COMMON ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABA D DATED 10-02-2010 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS CHALLENGI NG THE LEVY AND CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) ( B ) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS: 1.0. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. THE ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE FACTS OF YOUR APPELLANTS CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.0 THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 271(1) (B) ARE CONTRARY TO THE FAC TS AND UNFOUNDED. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE OR DER. THE ORDER BE QUASHED. IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 2 3.0 THE APPELLANT HAD RESPECTFULLY COMPLIED WITH AL L THE NOTICES AND IN THE EVENT OF ANY FAILURE THERE EXIST ED A REASONABLE CAUSE I.E INSUFFICIENT PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE OR NON - AVAILABILITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE OFFICE THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE QUASHED. 3.1 THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AS NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN FRA MED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 2. ALL THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 3 (THREE) DAY S. IT IS EXPLAINED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THAT THE L EARNED CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. THEREFORE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS APPROACHED TO RE-CONSIDER THE MATTER AGAIN AND THE ASSESSEE ON REALIZING THAT NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS), FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS WHICH ARE FILED WITH NOMI NAL DELAY. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEALS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY 3(THREE) DAYS. REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. THE FACTS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE THAT IN IT(SS) A NO.333/AHD/2010 TO IT(SS) A NO.339/AHD/2010, THE A O IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE IT ACT FOR FAILURE T O COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,0 00/- IN EACH YEAR. THE APPEALS WERE FIXED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND NO TICE WAS SERVED THROUGH SPECIAL MESSENGER FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, NONE ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DE SPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, DECIDED ALL THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 3 OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT W AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AO HA S MENTIONED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED ON 25-07-2008 F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2007-08 AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE. DATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FIXED ON 12-08-2008 AND 29-08-2008. HOWEVER, NONE ATTENDED ON THE APPOINTED DATES. THE FINDINGS OF TH E AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION I.E. THE REASONS FOR NO N-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 25-07-2008. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACC ORDINGLY DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS. 5 SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ANOTHER ORDER RE LATING TO IT(SS)A NOS. 340/AHD/2010 TO 346/AHD/2010 NOTED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER THAT THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SPECIAL MESSENGER, BUT NONE APPEARED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED ON MERIT EX-PARTE. IN TH ESE CASES, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED ON 03-10-2008 FOR A LL THE YEARS WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE NOTICE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION I.E. REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED ON 03-10-2008 CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER AND DISMISSE D THE REMAINING APPEALS ALSO 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE GROUP CASES OF NAVRATNA GROUP OF BUILDERS SEARCH WAS COND UCTED INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AND FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITA T AHMEDABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALASH DEVELOPERS PVT. LT D. VS ACIT IN IT(SS)A NOS. 430 TO 436/AHD/2010 DATED 16-09-2010 WHEREBY P ENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) ON ACCOUNT OF NON AVAILABILITY OF THE CONSU LTANT OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI DEEPAK SONI, PENALTY WAS CANCELED. HE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT IT WAS IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 4 SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THAT NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE WAS DUE TO MEDICAL EMERGEN CY OF YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS STAYING IN USA. THE NEWS OF HIS SERIOUS SICKNESS WAS RECEIVED ON 31 -08-2008 AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD TO LEAVE FOR U SA ON 01-09-2008. HIS BROTHER WAS SUFFERING FROM CANCER. THEREFORE, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REMAINED IN USA TILL 19-09-2008 AND HA S BROUGHT HIS BROTHER BACK. ULTIMATELY, HIS BROTHER EXPIRED ON 14 -11-2008. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THIS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CANCELLA TION OF THE PENALTY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON IS SAME IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ALSO FOR DEFAULT IN COMPLIAN CE OF NOTICE AS IS EXPLAINED IN THE GROUP CASES OF M/S. KALASH DEVELOP ERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16-09-2010 IS FILED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ALTERNATE C ONTENTION, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE NO REPLY HAS BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED T O THE FILE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NO TICE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT ONLY DEFAULTED IN COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE AT THE ASSES SMENT STAGE BUT ALSO DID NOT COLLECT THE SEIZED PAPERS AS RECORDED BY TH E AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AT THE PENALTY STAGE AS WELL AS BE FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATIO N TO THE NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES, THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( B) OF THE IT ACT. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO FACTS ARE AVAILA BLE ON RECORD IN THE ABOVE CASES, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALASH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT APPLY . IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 5 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE AO TIME TO TIME AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICES ON DIFFE RENT DATES AND NON- COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. T HE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDERS ALSO NOTED THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME FORWARD EVEN TO TAKE THE COPIES OF THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AO WAS ON LEAVE ON A PARTICULAR DATE BUT THE CHARGE WAS HELD BY SOME OTH ER OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS PRESENT IN OFFICE AND DESPITE GI VING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE NOTICES TO RECEIVE THE COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD AT THE APPELLATE STAGE , THE ASSESSEE HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES. NO RE PLY OR EXPLANATION WAS FILED AT THE PENALTY STAGE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES. NO REASONABLE/GENUINE CAUSE FOR SUCH REPEATED FAILURE WAS EXPLAINED. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A). THE NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS SERVED THROUGH SPECIAL MESSENGER FOR THE DATE FIXED BUT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO ARGUE THE APPEALS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE AND DI SMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE , MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO REPLY/EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE L EARNED CIT(A) EXPLAINING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMP LY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. EVEN IN THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NOW RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NO SPECIFIC REASONABLE CAUSE IS PLEADED AND WHATEVER CONTENTION NOW RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT EXPLAINED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS FILED ON RECORD OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT DUE TO PERSONAL DIFFICULTY OF THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES. THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAVE IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 6 GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AT THE PENALTY STAGE AS WELL AS APPELLATE STAGE TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STA TUTORY NOTICES, BUT NONE HAS BEEN AVAILED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIMAL GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY VS CIT 2 79 ITR 100 HELD THAT SINCE NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING PENALT Y WAS FILED, THEREFORE, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS VALID. THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RUKMINI BAI VS CIT 276 ITR 650 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, REJECTING THE APPLICATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION WHEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS WERE INITIATED. THE EXPLANATION COULD BE THE SAME A S THAT GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF THAT HAD BEEN SO, IT WOULD HAVE HAD HAD TO LOOK INTO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT WHEN NO EXPLANATION WAS FIL ED, IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT CONTEND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE COU RT THAT INTERFERENCE WAS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CALLING FOR THE STATEMEN T OF CASE WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY RECORDED THAT THE IMPOSITION O F PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1) ( C ) IN THE CASE WAS JUST AND PROPER. 9. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO WHEN THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS WERE INITIATED. THE EXPLANATION COULD BE THE SAME AS THA T GIVEN BEFORE THE AO AND IF THAT HAD BEEN SO, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, BUT WHEN NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED, IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. SINCE, THE EXPLANA TION NOW OFFERED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT THE ILLNESS OF THE BROTHE R OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BEFORE THE AO OR B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. NO EVIDENCE IS ALSO FILED IF ASSESSEES PRESENT COU NSEL WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR AT ASSESSMENT STAGE IN CASE OF HE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT AHMEDABAD IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 7 BENCH B IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALASH DEVELOPERS PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY TO THE PENALTY NOTIC ES I.E. THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES WHICH WERE CONNECTED WITH THE MEDICAL EMERGENCY OF BROTHER OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. MOREOVER, IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KALAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOTED IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED ABOUT THE ILLNESS OF HIS BROTHER ON 31-08-2008 AND HE LEFT FOR USA ON 01 -0-9-2008. IN THIS CASE, NON-COMPLIANCE WAS CONSIDERED ONLY WITH THE N OTICE DATED 03-10-2008. HOWEVER, IN THE FIRST 7 (SEVEN) APPEALS BEFORE US NON- COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE PERTAIN TO NOTICE DATED 25-07- 2008 FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED AND THE ILLNESS OF BROTHER O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE REASONABLE CAUSE. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-07 -2008. SINCE IN THE GROUP CASES, THE EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS WISDOM CONDONED THE NON-COMPLIANCE AND CANCELLED THE PENALTY. FACTS OF THIS CASE IS, THERE FORE, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND NO BENEFIT COULD BE GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. EVEN BEFORE US, NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS F ILED TO SUPPORT THE ORAL EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVEN DO NOT FIND MENTION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS NOTED ABOV E. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES. IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 8 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE LASTLY CON TENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW FOR GIVING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN REAS ONABLE CAUSE. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO EXPLAIN THE REASON. THE TRIBUN AL CANNOT DIRECT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVIDE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING THE FINDINGS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS DEN IED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR VIEW BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S AS EDUCATION SOCIETY 319 ITR 65 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT DESPITE TH4RE BEIN G A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN A SUFFICIE NT NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED TH E ORDER WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN. THE TRIBUNAL COUL D NOT DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING A FIN DING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY. FOR JUSTIFYING ITS DIRECTION FOR GIVING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY, THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO RECORD A FINDING O F DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY THUS, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL WAS SET ASIDE AND THE MATER WAS REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS N OT MADE OUT ANY CASE EVEN FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIO N ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND THESE TO BE FIT CASES FOR INTERFERENCE. WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DISMISS ALL T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT (SS) A NOS.333 TO 346/AHD/2010 M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CC-1, AHMEDABAD 9 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12-11-2010. SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 12-11-2010 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