Shri Omprakash J.Thakur, Vapi V. The ACIT.,Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITSSA 77/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0271 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV
• Keywords: Document seized; Bad and doubtful debts; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER (SS) !./ I.T(SS).A. NO.77/AHD/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17-7 -02) SHRI OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR PROP.THAKUR OMPRAKASH & BROS. 50, ANAND NAGAR NR.BHOLE BABA ASHRAM CHARWAD ROAD,VAPI / VS. THE ASST.CIT VAPI CIRCLE VAPI & !./'( !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEUPS 4496 J ( &) / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+&) / RESPONDENT ) &) , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR P.HEMANI, A.R. *+&) - , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.VAISHNAV, CIT-DR ' . - $/ / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 17/06/2014 012 - $/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2014 3 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 25.10.2012 PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 AND UPTO 17.7.2002. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON ACT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,95,6 00/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 2 - 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS.20,95,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D INCOME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DE LETE, SUBSTITUTE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRM ATION OF ADDITION OF RS.20,95,600/-. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGAT ION. IN EARLIER ROUND, THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN IT(SS) NO.123/AHD/2005 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.162/AHD/2005 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.96 TO 31.3.02 & UPTO 17.7.02 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/04/2010 HAD RESTORED THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHOR T) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S.13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 17.7.2002 AT THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, PAPER AND CHEQUES WERE FOUND. THE AO MADE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.20,95,6 00/-. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE A DDITION TO RS.30,000/-. HOWEVER, ON REVENUES APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I N THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL, THE AO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BY RE PEATING THE SAME GROUNDS TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER COMPLET ELY DISREGARDING THE DIRECTION OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN NOTINGS WERE FOUND AT PAGE-4 AND PAGE-63 & 71 OF ANNEXURE BS-I SEIZED DURING SEARCH IN RESPECT OF SE CURITY DEPOSIT IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 3 - RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS IN LIEU OF CREDIT SALES. T HE AO TREATED THE SAME TO BE UNACCOUNTED MONEY LENT BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDIN GLY, HE WORKED OUT INTEREST ON SUCH ADVANCES @ 24% FOR TWO YEARS AND M ADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY TREATED THE SAID SUM TO BE MONEY LENT BY APPELLANT TO OTHERS. IN REALIT Y, THE SAID SUM REPRESENTS SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE APPELL ANT FROM THE CUSTOMERS IN LIEU OF CREDIT SALES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN A NO RMAL TRADE PRACTICE IN THE MARKET OF ONION AND POTATOES TO TAKE SOME SORT OF S ECURITY DEPOSIT SINCE THERE WAS AN UNORGANIZED MARKET WITH MORE LIKELIHOO D OF BAD DEBTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PLACED AFFIDAVITS OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS WHEREIN THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN SECURITY DEPOSIT TO THE APPELLANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NA MES AN ADDRESSES OF SUCH PERSONS WERE PROVIDED TO AO VIDE SUCH AFFIDAVI TS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CARRIED OUT INQUIRIES WIT H SUCH PERSONS IN CASE HE HAD ANY DOUBT AS TO SUCH SECURITY DEPOSITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY INQUIRY WITH THE CONCERNED PE RSONS WHICH IMPLIES THAT CONTENTS OF SUCH AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT BEEN CONT ROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ONCE SUCH AFFIDAVITS REMAINED UNCONTRO VERTED AND UN- REBUTTED FROM THE END OF DEPARTMENT, THE VERACITY O F THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF MEHTA PARIKAND CO. REPORTED AT 30 ITR 181 (SC) AND JUDGEM ENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DILIPKUMA R ROY VS. CIT REPORTED AT 94 ITR 1 (BOM). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE FIRST ROUND, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION THAT T HE SEIZED PAPERS AND SEIZED CHEQUE RELATE TO UDHARI (I.E. CREDIT) AND NOT ADVANCE GIVEN BY IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 4 - THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL REMITTED TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PROPER VERIFICATION OF ALL THE MATERIAL AND TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH. HE SUBMITTED THAT STILL THE AO CHOSE NOT TO CARRY OUT REQUIRED INQUIRIES WHICH IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIREC TIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE AO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL GIVEN WHILE REMI TTING THE MATTER TO HIM, THEN THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE A OUGHT TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE APPEL LANT PLACED NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE AO, IT WAS FOR AO TO PROVE THAT TH E SAME ARE WRONG. AO COULD NOT HAVE MERELY DISBELIEVED THE SAME AND M ADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT CARRYING ANY FURTHER INQUIRY. HE SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT CANNOT BE PENALIZED WITH SUCH BASELESS ADDITION FOR WANT O F ANY INACTION AT THE END OF AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) H AS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION BY TREATING SUCH AFFIDAVITS AS NOT RELIABL E BASED ON CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS WHICH ARE NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LA W. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY NOTARY, ADDITION CANNOT BE CONFIRMED AND NECESSARY INQUIRIE S OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE WITH SUCH PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT INQUIRIE S COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN MADE TO VERIFY ALIAS NAME OF SUCH PERSONS AND THE AUTHENTICITY COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT GENERALL Y NO SUCH SECURITIES ARE OFFERED BY PURCHASERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NAMELESS AND DATELESS CHEQUES WERE ACCEPTED SINCE THE SAME WERE SECURITY DEPOSITS AND WERE TO BE DEPOSITED IF NEED BE. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE BY A HIRD PARTY TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CONCERNED PERSON IS A CONSEQUENCE OF MUTUAL UNDERST ANDING BETWEEN IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 5 - SUCH PERSON AND THE THIRD PARTY. THE SAME HAS NO BEARING ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE TRANSACTION OF RECEIVING SECURI TY DEPOSIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TREATED CONTENTS O F SUCH AFFIDAVITS TO BE FAR FROM TRUTH WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY INQUIRIES F ROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFI RMED THE SAID ADDITION WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE JUSTIFICATION. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD, QUESTION OF TREATING SUCH SUM AS MONEY LENT BY APPELLANT AND MAKING AN ADDITION I N RESPECT OF THE SAME AS WELL AS INTEREST THEREON BY TREATING IT AS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HOLD ANY WATER. HENCE, IT DESER VES TO BE DELETED. HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS DUPLICATION OF ENTRIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,30,000 /-. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ANNEXURE-A, WHEREIN A CH ART HAS BEEN FURNISHED. HE ALSO TOOK AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT I N CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. HENCE, IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, ADDITION OF RS.1,99,200/- AND RS.2,06,400/- BEING ESTIMATED INTEREST ON ALLEGED MONEY LENT TO OTHERS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGMENT(S) OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. M.K.E.MEMON REPORTED AT 248 ITR 310 (BOM) AND OF CI T VS. C.J.SHAH & CO. REPORTED AT 246 ITR 671 (BOM). HE ALSO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MEMO N FRUIT CO. VS. ACIT REPORTED AT 62 TTJ 214 (AHD.). 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SHRI O.P.VAISHNAV VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. HE FURTHER IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 6 - SUBMITTED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE EVIDENCES COL LECTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFID ENCE. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD) I N IT(SS)A NO.123/AHD/2005 WITH CO NO.162/AHD/2005 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/04/2010 HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A O BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN POTATO AN ONION S. THE ASSESSEE MAKES SALE OF GOODS ON CREDIT TO VARIOUS PARTIES IS ALSO NOT IN DOUBT AND DISPUTE. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CO NCLUDED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.8,30,000/- MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMEN TS MARKED PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE-BS-1 WAS PART OF SEIZED CHEQUES OF RS.8 ,60,000/- FOUND AT PAGE NOS.71 TO 83 AND 63 OF BS-1. BEFORE US, ALSO THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT STATE WHICH CHEQUE FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED PAGE NO.71 TO 83 AND 63 OF BS-1 WERE GIVEN BY WHICH PARTIES. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT DISPUTE THE F INDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT I N THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS AND SEIZED CHEQUES IN QUESTION RELATES TO HI S UDHARI I.E. CREDIT AND NOT ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) BEFORE US. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE US BY ANY OF THE PARTIES. THE CON TENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY EITHER OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTE D THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DEPONENT AND WITHOU T BRINGING ON RECORD THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND FURTHER W ITHOUT BRINGING ON IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 7 - RECORD THE MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS F OUND BY IT THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE UNACCEPTABLE OR UNREL IABLE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CO ULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WHICH WAS FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND WHICH WOULD CORROBORATE THIS INFE RENCE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED PAGE 4 OF BS-1 AND MARKED PAGE NO.71 TO 83 AND 63 OF BS-1. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTA NCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE, TO RESTORE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION O F ALL THE MATERIALS AND THEREAFTER, ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH BY PA SSING A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SH ALL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUD ICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.1. WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE DECI DED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT (SS)NO.123/AHD/2005. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE EVIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE SO CALLED AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORIZED NOTARY. IT IS A MERE DECLARATION IN THE STAMP PAPER BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HE AFFIDAVITS ALSO IN SOME CASES USED NAME ALIAS WH ICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY ABOUT ITS AUTHENTI CITY. GENERALLY IN THIS KIND OF TRADING ACTIVITIES NO SUC H SECURITIES ARE OFFERED BY THE PURCHASERS. THE APPELLANT HAD N OT DEMONSTRATED SECURITY OTHER THAN WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE DOCUMENTS ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN DEALING W ITH MANY SUCH PURCHASERS. WHY NAMELESS, DATELESS CHEQUES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR CREDIT SALES. WHETHER SUCH CREDIT SA LES DURING THAT PERIOD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS IS NOT PRO VED BY THE APPELLANT BY PRODUCING LEDGER A/C COPIES OF THE RES PECTIVE PARTIES. IN THE EAGERNESS TO MATCH THE NAMES IN BOTH THE DOC UMENTS THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EXPLAIN IN SOME CASES CHEQUE S WERE IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 8 - ISSUED BY THIRD PARTIES AND USED ALIAS NAME WITHOUT GIVING PROPER EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO AND DURING APP ELLATE PROCEEDING. AFFIDAVITS ARE AFTERTHOUGHT, MECHANICAL AND THE CON TENTS THEREIN ARE FAR FROM TRUTH. 6.2. STRANGELY, THE AO WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE I N THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO.123/ AHD/2005 WITH CO NO.162/AHD/2005(SUPRA), IN PARA-7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORDED THAT FACT REMAINED THAT ALL THESE PAPERS ARE CONSIDERED AND TAKEN CARE BY THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES AND ADJUDICATION WAS MADE I N THIS REGARD. WE FIND THAT NEITHER IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS NOR IN TH E REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO MADE ANY INQUIRY FROM THE DEPONENTS OF THE A FFIDAVITS. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO IS HIGHLY DEPRECATED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC OBSERVATION IN RESPECT OF AFFI DAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY GIVES A DIREC TION AS PER LAW, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED WITH. IF THE CONCE RNED AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTENTS THEREOF AS FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FALSE, THE AUTHORITY HAS ALL RECOURSE AVAILABLE UND ER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND INCOME TAX ACT. SO FAR, THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF THE AFFIDAVITS, IS NOT VERIFIED BY EXA MINING THE DEPONENT, SUCH EVIDENCES CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. SELF DRAWN CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT PERMISSIB LE UNDER THE LAW,IF IT IS ALLOWED, IT WILL CREATE A CHAOTIC SITUATION. EV EN TRUE AND GENUINE TRANSACTION WOULD BE PRESUMED AS FALSE AND INGENUIN E TRANSACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAX-PAYER WOULD BE BURDENED WITH ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY TAX LIABILITY. THEREFORE, LOOKING T O THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WOULD SUBSERVE THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, IF THE APPEAL IS IT(SS)A NO.77/A HD/2013 OMPRAKASH J.THAKUR VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD AYS 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 9 - RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ENTIR E MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO .123/AHD/2005 WITH CO NO.162/AHD/2005 DATED 30/04/2010(SUPRA). THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ALL THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCES FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WOULD VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WOULD AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSE SSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/08/2014 6/.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 3 - *$7 872$ 3 - *$7 872$ 3 - *$7 872$ 3 - *$7 872$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &) / THE APPELLANT 2. *+&) / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ '9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. '9() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 7 #: *$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;< =. / GUARD FILE. 3' 3' 3' 3' / BY ORDER, +7$ *$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !' !' !' !' ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD