The ACIT,B.K. Circle, Palanpur V. Shri Rameshkumar Surajmal Soni, Banaskantha

ITSSA 570/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9107 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Procedural lapse; Assessment record; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 15

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .'.#$%, '& ' ' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY SL.NO(S) IT(SS)A NO(S) BLOCK PERIOD APPELLANT RESPONDENT(S) 1. 570/AHD/2010 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 ACIT B.K.CIRCLE PALANPUR SHRI RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI NR.HANUMAN TEMPLE OPP.NAGARPALIKA THARAD PAN : ANSOPS 7022 B 2, 571/AHD/2010 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 -DO- REVENUE SHRI PRABHUDAS K.SONI -ADDRESS AS ABOVE- PAN:AFQPS 0796G 3. 572/AHD/2010 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 -DO- REVENUE SHRI PRATAPBHAI K.SONI -ADDRESS AS ABOVE- PAN: AINPS 3393Q REVENUE BY : SL.NOS.1 TO 3 SHRI D.P.GUPTA, CIT-DR. ASSESSEE BY : SL NO.2 . SHRI U.S.BHATI SL.NOS.1 &3. NONE- / DATE OF HEARING : 03/04/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/04/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARISING FROM THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XIV AHMEDABAD ID ENTICALLY DATED 27/04/2010. THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN CONSOLID ATED BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED A LEG AL ISSUE IN ALL THESE ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 2 - THREE APPEALS BY IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUND OF APPEA L; REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMEDA BAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELING THE ORDER U/ S.158BC AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW, WHILE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS ENTIRELY TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AS HELD BY HONBLE LUCKNOW SPL BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAVAL K ISHORE SONS & JEWELLERS VS. DCIT 87 ITD 407. 2. AT THE OUTSET, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON T WO ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, OUT OF WHICH, ONE IS A COMBINED ORDER (DA TED 16/05/2008) WHICH PERTAINED TO (I) IT(SS)ANO.571/AHD/2010(SUPRA )& (II) IT(SS)A NO.572/AHD/2010(SUPRA) AS UNDER: SL.NO(S) IT(SS)A NO(S) BLOCK PERIOD 1. 254/AHD/2002 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 2. 259/AHD/2002 -DO- 3. 252/AHD/2002 -DO- SL.NO.1: SHRI PRATAPBHAI KHUSHALBHAI SONI NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE THARAD (DISTRICT BANASKANTHA) SL.NO.2 : THE ASSTT.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) AHMEDABAD SL.NO.3 : SHRI PRABHUDAS KHUSHALDAS SONI NR.HANUMAN TEMPLE THARAD VS. SL.NO.1 THE ASSTT.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) AHMEDABD SL.NO.2 : SHRI PRATAPBHAI KHUSHALBHAI SONI THARAD (DIST.B.K.) SL.NO.3 : THE ASSTT.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) AHMEDABAD PAN AINPS 3393Q (PRATAPBHAI K.SONI), PAN : - P RABHUDAS K.SONI) (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 3 - 2.1. THE OTHER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (DATED 25/05/2 007) WHICH IS CITED BEFORE US IS IN RESPECT OF IT(SS)A 570/AHD/2010(SUP RA) AS UNDER:- IT(SS) A NO.253/AHD/2002 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1989 TO 28.3.2000 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1989-2000 SHRI RAMESH KUMAR & SURAJMAL SONI NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE OPP.NAGARPALIKA, THARAD .. APPELLANT. -VERSUS- THE A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) AHMEDABAD .RESPONDENT. IT(SS)A NO.258/AHD/2002 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1989-2000 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) AHMEDABAD ..APPELLANT . -VERSUS - SHRI RAMESH KUMAR S.SARAJMAL SONI NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE OPP.NAGARPALIKA, THARAD ..RESPONDENT . 2.2. IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENTION, AT THIS JUNCTURE, THAT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE AN OR DER DATED 16/5/2008 WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIB UNAL VIDE AN ORDER DATED 25/05/2007. ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 4 - 2.3. IN RESPECT OF IT(SS)A NO.571/AHD/2010 AND IT(S S)A NO.572/AHD/2010, WE HAVE NOTED THAT CONSEQUENCE UPO N THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SHRI U.S.BHATTI CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS, ON WHICH REPORT FROM THE AO WAS OBTAINED AND WAS AL SO MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT ON WHICH COUNTER COMMENT S FROM THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO RECEIVED. THE AO STRONGLY DEFE NDED THE BLOCK ORDER STATING THAT A PROCEDURAL LAPSE/MISTAKE IS GO VERNED BY SECTION 292B OF THE ACT AND CANNOT VITIATE THE PROC EEDINGS OR NULLIFY THE ORDER SPECIALLY WHEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED ABOUT THE ISSUA NCE OF 143(2) NOTICE. THE AO ALSO RELIED ON CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF ACIT CIR 1 (1) VS. AMOLAK JERAH WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: ADMITTEDLY CHAPTER XIV B IS A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FO R ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES. THE PROVISIONS CONTAIN ED IN CHAPTER XIVB ARE MACHINERY PROVISION AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH IN THIS MACHINERY GIVE RISE TO CERT AIN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 158BC MANDATE THE AO TO SERVE NOTICE ON A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERI OD. 4. THE APPELLANT VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 18. 8.2009 STATED AS UNDER: WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE REPORT OF THE LEARN ED AO AND FOUND IN NUTSHELL THAT THE PREREQUISITE NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE L EARNED AO, IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME AND THE REFORE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE ORDER PASSED ON 28 TH MARCH, 2002 IN THE CASE OF ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE CANCELLED BEING ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS DIRECTED BY THE ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 5 - HONOURABLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ITS ORDER VIDE IT(SS) A NOS.252,254 & 259/A/2002 DATED 16 TH MAY, 2008 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CAS E IT IS SEEN THAT THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED ON 29.11.2000 AND NOTICE U/S .142(1) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 24.1.2002. IN MY OPINION TH IS OFFICE IS EQUIVALENT TO NOTICE U/S.143(2) BECAUSE THROUGH NOT ICE U/S.142(1) THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO B E PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS/ACCOUNTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO WHICH IS AS GOOD AS AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING U/S.143(2), BUT TH IS NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN A YEAR OF FILING OF THE BLOCK RE TURN, THEREFORE FOLLOWING HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH A DECISION DATED 16.5.2008 QUOTED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HIMSELF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED, AS HONBLE ITAT HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO CANCEL THE ASSESSMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.BANDANA GOGOI. 2.4. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE ASSESSEES, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS FINALLY DECIDED THOSE APPEALS BY PASSING VERBATIM ORDERS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT APPEARS THAT SHE HAS SIMPLY FOL LOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE WAS HARDLY ANY SCOPE TO DEVI ATE FROM THOSE DIRECTIONS. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID COMBINED ORDER DATED 16/05/2008(SUPRA) WERE AS UNDER:- 22. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TWO APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BEFORE US, SO FAR AS ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE STIPULATED/PRESCRIBED LIMITAT ION PERIOD IS CONCERNED, BEING THE SAME AS WERE IN THE CASE OF SH RI RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI(SUPRA), WE, FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI ( SUPRA), ADMIT ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 6 - THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN BOTH THE PRESENT CASES AND , FURTHER, AFTER FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NO S.9, 10 & 11 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI, RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTIONS THAT HE WILL VERIF Y FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AS TO WHETHER ANY NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO ASSESSEES HAD EVER BEEN IS SUED AND SERVED BEFORE THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. IN CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT NO NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SERVED UPON, ON ANY OF THESE TWO ASSESSEES WITHIN T HE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, HE WILL CANCEL THE ASSESSMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW, I N THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.BANDANA GOGOI (SUPRA). IN CASE, IT IS FOUND TH AT THESE ASSESSEES OR ANY ONE OF THEM HAD BEEN SERVED WITH N OTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD , THEN WILL RESTORE HIS ORIGINAL ORDERS AND ASSESSEE WILL BE FR EE TO COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECISION ON MERITS. 3. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE QUESTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) AS PR ESCRIBED WAS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND A RE MAND REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S.143(2) OF THE ACT, LD.CIT(A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE THAT THE CIT(A) WILL VERIFY FROM THE ASSESSMEN T RECORD AS TO WHETHER ANY NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT HAD EVER B EEN ISSUED AND SERVED BEFORE THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED AND IN CAS E IT IS FOUND THAT NO NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED UPON, HE WILL CAN CEL THE ASSESSMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 7 - COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.BANDANA GOGOI VS. CIT (289 ITR 28)[GAUHATI]. SINCE THE DIRECTIONS WERE VERY SPECIFIC AND THE REV ENUE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S.1 43(2) OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE CANCELLED BY CATEGORICALLY MENTIONING THAT, QUOTE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED, AS HONBLE ITAT HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO CANCEL THE ASSESSMENTS AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW IN THE LI GHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.BANDA NA GOGOI . 3.1. WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LD.CIT(A) BECAUSE HE WAS EXPECTED TO PASS SUCH AN ORDER WHICH OUGHT TO B E IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING A SUPERIOR AUTHORI TY IN THE JUDICIAL HIERARCHY AS HELD IN THE CASE OF BANK OF BARODA VS. H.C.SHRIVASTAVA REPORTED AT (2002)256 ITR 385 (BOM). RESULTANTLY, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE, HENCE DISMISSED. THUS, THESE TWO APPEALS BEARING IT(SS)A NOS.571/AHD/2010 & 572/AHD/2010 OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH IT(SS)A NO.570/AHD/2010 AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25 /05/2007(SUPRA) HAS DIRECTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 289 ITR 28. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 8 - INSTANT CASE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE AC T IS NOT SERVED WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUE BUT WE FIND TH AT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ALSO TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS WHETHER THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS I SSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE BLOCK PERIOD R ETURN BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE BY PASSING A SPEAKING OR DER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. ALTHOUGH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH IS CASE WERE NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS DIRECTED IN THE ABOVE TWO CASES, BUT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A VERBATIM FINDING. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD .CIT(A) WAS EXPECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FAC T AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I N THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25/05/2007, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DI RECTION THAT IN CASE THERE WAS A DEFAULT U/S.143(2) OF ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E, THEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE CANCELLED, THEREFORE LD.CIT(A) WAS EXPECTED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT O F CASE-LAWS, PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2 010) 321 ITR 362(SC). THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS ALSO THE DECISION OF HONB LE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN ON A DECISION OF RESPECTED ITAT PATNA BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CHAND BIHARI AGRAWAL VS. ACIT IN IT(SS)A NO.05/PAT/2010, WHEREIN THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) VIS--VIS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED, PARAGRAPH NO.19 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 9 - 19. AS STATED EARLIER IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF THIS ORDER , THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE GENERALITY OF THE E XPRESSIONS FOUND IN A JUDGMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXPOSITI ON OF THE WHOLE LAW BUT GOVERNED AND QUALIFIED BY THE PARTICULAR FA CTS OF THE CASE IN WHICH SUCH EXPRESSIONS ARE FOUND AND A CASE IS O NLY AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY DECIDES. NONE OF THE AFORESAID ISSUES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN ANY OF THE JUDGMENTS/ORDERS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PRESE NT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DEAL WITH THEM AS ALSO THE APPLICABILIT Y OF SECTION 292BB TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON TH AT WE HAVE ALREADY HELD EARLIER IN THIS ORDER THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 143(2) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE AS THE RETURN FURNISHED BY HIM IS NON-EST IN LAW HAVING BEEN FILE D AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD LAID DOWN IN SECTION 15 8BC. SECTION 292BB COMES INTO OPERATION ONLY WHEN A NOTICE IS RE QUIRED TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT BUT HAS EITHER NOT BEEN ISSUED AT ALL OR NOT ISSUED/SERVED IN TIME OR IN PROPER MANNE R. SECTION 292BB IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED IF THE NOTICE I TSELF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD EARLIER THAT NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED IN THE CASE BEFORE US FOR THE REASONS GIVEN EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEE D TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 292BB IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4.2. THESE DECISIONS ARE NOW REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN I NTO ACCOUNT. SINCE THESE DECISIONS ARE YET TO BE APPLIED AFTER ASCERTA INING CERTAIN FACTS AS OPINED IN THESE DECISIONS, THEREFORE IN THE INTERES T OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE BACK TO THE STAG E OF LD.CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO AS PER LAW. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVEN UE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.570,571 & 572/AHD/2010 ACIT VS. SH.RAMESHKUMAR SURAJMAL SONI & OTHERS BLOCK PEIROD 1.4.89 TO 28.3.2000 - 10 - 5. IN THE RESULT, IT(SS)A NOS.571 & 572/AHD/2010 AR E DISMISSED, WHEREAS IT(SS)A NO.570/AHD/2010 IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. SD/- SD/ - ( .. ) ( ) !' ( A. K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/ 04 /2013 # .$., .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ') * +,- .'-/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &'$() / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ,-,./ 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0 (&'$) / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. 34$ *''./, &'$ &./, &5- / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 6 7 / GUARD FILE. ')0 / BY ORDER, +3' *' //TRUE COPY// 1/ 2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION DATED 03.4.13 (DICTATION-PAD 9 PAGES ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 4.4.13 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S26.4.13 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 26.4.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER