Shri Dinesh Babulal Thakkar, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 573/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1615 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 573/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 DINESH BABULAL THAKKAR, 10, ELLIPHANTA SOCIETY, NR. D. K. MALL, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S . THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AATPT3154D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ' / BY ASSESSEE SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, A.R. $ ' / BY REVENUE SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL, SR. D.R. % ' /DATE OF HEARING 17.02.2016 &'() ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.03.2016 O R D E R PER : SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III AHMEDABAD, DATED 28.11.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVIN G INCOME FROM BUSINESS, CAPITAL AGAINST AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE POLICE HAD RAIDED THE PREMISES OF M/S. KALGI, AHMEDABAD ON 26.08.2003 ON THE GROUND THAT CRICKET BETTING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT FROM THE PREMISES. SHRI TARUN D KARIA AND SOME OTHER PERSONS WERE ARRESTED BY POLICE. STATEM ENTS OF SHRI TARUN D KARIA AND OTHER PERSONS WERE RECORDED U/S.131(1A) O F THE ACT, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYEE OF SHRI DINESH B. THAKKAR AND HE PAYS/RECEIVES CASH AS PER INSTRUCTION OF HIS EMPLOY ER. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12.03.2004 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 17.03.2004 AND IN COMPLIANCE OF WHICH A SSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,55,52 0/-. THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.153A(B) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S.19,71,705/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.20 07 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED ON 28.11.2007 BY CIT(A)-III, ABAD, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.4,46,270/- MADE BY THE AO IS WHOL LY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DEALING WITH THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY AO U/S.153A(A) OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE CASH CREDITS FROM FIVE PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.4, 46,270/ WAS UNEXPLAINED IN VIEW OF IDENTITY / GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CR EDIT WORTHINESS NOT PROVED. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAI LED TO PROVE THE CASH CREDIT OF RS.4,46,270/-. 4. THE REGISTRY HAS INFORMED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY 881 DAYS. THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF MIXING OF ORDER WITH OTHER PAPERS AT THE END OF THE ADVOCATE WHO IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 3 WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE INCOME TAX MATTERS OF ASSES SEE. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SANJIV ALIAS SANJU MANUBH AI RAMI, OFFICE ASSISTANT OF BHATT & CO., THE ADVOCATE, WHEREIN THE MIXUP OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH OTHER PAPERS RESULTING INTO DELAY IN FILING OF PRES ENT APPEAL HAS BEEN STATED. LD. A.R. AFTER TAKING US THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF AF FIDAVIT SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL HAPPENED FOR THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE D ELAY BE CONDONED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN CASE OF MAHEND RA AMBALAL PATEL VS. DCIT IN IT(SS)A NO. 614/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 THE DE LAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WAS CONDONED BY TRIBUNAL. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECOR D THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECT ED TO THE PRAYER OF LD. A.R. FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY BE NOT CONDONED AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY REASON FOR DELAY AND THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY IS NOT THE MATTER OF RIGHT. H E ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL REPORTED IN 253 I TR 798 AND THE DECISION OF JCIT VS. TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD. REPORTED I N 104 ITD 149 ITAT, CHENNAI (TM). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE IS A D ELAY IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE REASON FOR DELAY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF N. BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY (1998) 7 SCC 123 HAS HELD THAT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND THE TIME LIM IT FIXED FOR APPROACHING THE COURT IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS IS NOT BECAUSE ON THE EXPIRY OF SUCH TIME A BAD CAUSE WOULD TRANSFORM INTO A GOOD CAUSE. IT FURTHER HELD THAT RULES OF IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 4 LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHTS OF P ARTIES BUT ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. IT FURTHER HELD THAT IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY, THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCERNED BUT THAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HIS PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOOR AGAINST HIM. IT FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SMACK OF MALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF DILATORY STRATEGY, THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. THE H ONBLE APEX COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IN APP ROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE AND THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. 5.1 WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR L AND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. REPORTED IN (1987) AIR 1353, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTED THAT REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THE THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF J USTICE BEING DEFEATED. IT FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELA Y IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALA FIDES AND A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY BUT ON THE CONTRARY HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK . IT FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERR ED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. 5.2 CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRELY OF FACTS, AND IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF AS SESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS STIPULATE D IN THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 5 BEFORE ITAT NEEDS TO BE CONDONED. WE THEREFORE COND ONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 6. ON THE MERITS OF IMPUGNED ADDITION, THE FACTS AR E THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESS EE HAD A BANK ACCOUNT NO.9205 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. ON PERUSAL OF T HE BANK STATEMENT, HE NOTICED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 I.E. BETWEEN 01.04.1997 TO 31.03.1998, THE TOTAL CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS RS.18,16,185/- WHICH WERE BY WAY OF CLEARING OF CHEQUES AND TRANSFER ENT RIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES. ON THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS, A.O. AD DED THE AGGREGATE CREDITS OF RS.18,16,185/-, AS APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT, AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED THE PARTIA L RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.1 IT WAS ARGUED THAT DESPITE LACK OF CONFIRMATOR Y DETAILS FROM THE BANK, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY THE A.O., THERE WAS OTH ER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT R ELATED TO THE AMOUNTS OF RS.4.85 LAKHS RECEIVED AS LOAN, THE AMOUNT OF RS.24 LAKHS B EING SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.27,450/- BEING CAR LOAN AND AMOUNT OF RS.10.29 LAKHS BEING CHEQUES RETURNED. THEREFORE, NO CREDIT ENTRY WAS UN EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. THE CONTENTIONS WERE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAD SOUGHT DETAILS ON 17/3/2006 AND HAD NOT EXAMINED TH E REPLY, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ON 31/3/2006. HENCE COPIES OF THE SUBMIS SION MADE/DETAILS GIVEN WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS/REPORT IN DE CEMBER, 2006. THE RESPONSE OF THE A.O. WAS STILL AWAITED. APPARENTLY, THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT NEEDS TO BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A AS THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FURNISHING EXPLANATION. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT SENT ANY OBJECTION. HENCE IT IS ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A. 7.1 FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE RE WERE CREDIT ENTRIES ON DIFFERENT DATES, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE IM MEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY DEBIT ENTRIES OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME/ADJACENT DAT E APPARENTLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHEQUES HAVING BOUNCED/RETURNED. THUS THE CREDIT EN TRIES TOTALING RS.10,29,120/- IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 6 WERE COUNTERED BY DEBIT ENTRIES OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME/ADJACENT DATES, ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING BEEN REVERSED. THIS BEING SO, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ADDING OF THE TOTAL OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES, WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE CONTRA/CORRESPONDING DEBIT ENTRIES,WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. SIMILARLY, IT IS SEEN TH AT THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.727/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST, AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,102/ - WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY, DETAILS OF WHICH HAD BEEN RE FLECTED IN THE ENCLOSURES FILED (30/3/2000) WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1998 -99. 7.2 THE CHEQUES OF RS.27,450/- PERTAINED TO LOAN OB TAINED FROM M/S. APPLE FINANCE. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRM ATIONS (ALL DATED 15/12/2006) OF DIFFERENT PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESS STATING THE DATE/CHEQUE NUMBER/AMOUNT, ETC. AND CONFIRMING OF ITS NATURE OF BEING A LOAN TO THE APPELLANT, APART FROM MENTIONING SOURCE OF THIS LOAN. THE ENTRY OF RS.25 ,000/- AS PER THE BANK DETAILS WAS DRAWN BY A SELF CHEQUE NO.74460 ON 18/6/1997 FOLLOW ED BY A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25,000/- ON 18/6/1997 ITSELF. THE EXPLANATION TH AT THIS CASH DEPOSIT WAS OF THE SAME AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL EARLIER, CANNOT BE THEREFORE DISCOUNTED. IN THE EVENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A LU MPSUM ADDITION OF ALL THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION/DET AILS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THESE CREDIT ENTRIES. THE CONTENDERS OF THE APPELLANT REG ARDING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2,49,102/-, RS.27,450/- AND RS.25,000/- ARE ACCE PTED AND THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE DELETED. 7.3 IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT, TOTALING RS.4,85,070/- ASCRIBED TO CASH CREDITS, RECEIVED FROM PERSONS/IN THE MANNER MENTIONED IN PARA 6 OF THIS ORDER, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THEIR CONFIR MATIONS (DATED 15/12/2006) HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER, THESE WERE NOT FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORD. A COPY OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS WAS PROVIDED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS/REPORTS, WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 27TH NOVEMB ER, 2007. IN HIS REPORT, THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT THAT ONLY THE CASH CREDIT STAT ED RECEIVED FROM ONE MAHAVIR JOGRAJ, I.E. OF RS.38,800/- APPEARS TO BE GENUINE A ND THE COPY OF HIS PAN HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER CREDITORS, THE CONFIRMATIONS ARE UNDATED AND / OR WITHOUT AUTHENTICATED SIGNATURES OR COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE OF THE OTHER FIVE CASH CREDITORS AND THE A.O. FELT THAT THE EVID ENCE IN FORM OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AND EVEN IT IS ACCEPTED, IT HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. ON PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTIONS /DETAILS ON RECORD, IT I S SEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN APPARENTLY RECEIVED BY CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BUT THE IDENTITY /GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE CREDITORS EXCEPT IN CASE OF MAHAVIR JOGRAJ, REMAINS UNPROVED. HENCE THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED TO RS.4,46,270/- (RS.4,85,070 -RS.38,800 /-) AND THE BALANCE IS DELETED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8.1 BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) AND HE SUBMITTED T HAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THROUGH BANK CHEQUES AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED CONFIRMATIONS AND IN IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 7 SUCH A SITUATION, ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITI AL ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD F ILED THE CONFIRMATION OF PARTY AND ALSO THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). IN SUCH A SITUATION, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS CALLED FOR AND THEREFORE ADDITIONS BE DEL ETED. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AN D SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, COPIES OF CONFIRMATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED DOES NOT HAVE THE FULL ADDRESS AND PAN NO. OF THE DEPOSITORS. HE, THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CALLED F OR. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RES PECT TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD GRANTED PARTIAL R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REAS ONS THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE UNDATED, WERE WITHOUT AUTHENTICATED SIGNATURES AND WERE WITHOUT COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE IDENTITY AND GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAD REMAINED UNPROVED. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. BEFORE US, IT IS LD. A.RS . SUBMISSION THAT IT WOULD BE IN POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS, IF GIVEN A N OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R., W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GR ANTED TO ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. NEEDL ESS TO STATE THAT HE SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE P ARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY FURNISH ALL THE REQUIRED DETAI LS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN CASE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH THE REQU IRED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY LD. IT(SS)A NO.573/AHD/2010 A.Y. 1998-99 [DINESH BABULA L THAKKAR VS. ACIT] PAGE 8 CIT(A), LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE FREE TO DECIDE THE ISSU E IN THE MANNER AS DEEMED FIT AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 /03/20 16 SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (ANIL CHA TURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED. 22/03/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- *+ , -. / APPELLANT /+ 01-. / RESPONDENT 2+ 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4+ 6- , / CIT (A) 9+ :; < 045 , 45) = 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD >+ < ?@ A B / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ,/= ,$ , 45) = 3