Manjulaben Rambhai Patel, Anand v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Anand

ITA 1499/AHD/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 149920514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ADRPP7488F
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1499/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Manjulaben Rambhai Patel, Anand
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Anand
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH (BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT) ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 DHARMENDRA RATILAL PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN : ADRPP 7488F VS. ITO WARD-3 ANAND. ITA.NO.1497/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 JAINITABEN NILESHBHAI PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN : AEXPP 6300 F VS. ITO WARD-3 ANAND. ITA NO.1498/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 NILESHKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. VS. ITO WARD-4 ANAND. ITA NO.1499/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 MANJULABEN RAMBHAI PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7491 C VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. ITA NO.1500/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 RAMILABEN DHARMENDRAKUMAR PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7468 M VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. ITA NO.1501/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 URMILABEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7486 M VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. ITA NO.1502/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 SUNILKUMAR RAMBHAI PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7487 L VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -2- ITA NO.1503/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 VASHISTHABEN SUNILKUMAR PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7480 P VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. ITA NO.1504/AHD/2010 A.Y.2002-2003 SHARDABEN RATILAL PATEL C/O. ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P.LTD. FORD HOUSE M.D. MARG ANAND 388 001. PAN ADRPP 7485 J VS. ITO WARD-1 ANAND. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVETIA REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE ARE NINE APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 3.03.2010. SINCE ASSESSEES ARE INT ER-RELATED ISSUES ARE COMMON FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE DISPOSE OF ALL THESE APPEALS BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED. THEREFORE WE SHALL MENTION HERE THE GROUNDS IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA RATIAL PATEL IN ITA NO. 1496/AHD/2010 WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CON FIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ITO ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS RS.1 74 608 /- 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: 1.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW THE REOPENING OF ASSTT. U/S.147 OF THE ACT IN CONSE QUENCE OF DIRECTION ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -3- CONTAINED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV BARO DA FOR A.Y.2002-03 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N. 1.2 THE NOTICE OF RE-ASSTT. ISSUED U/S.148 RWS 1249 AND 1250 OF THE ACT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE REOPEN ING MADE UNDER PROVISO FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 1247 OF THE ACT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO REOPE NED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 VIDE NOTICE DATED 31-3-2009 WITHOUT GIV ING ANY ADEQUATE REASONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.1 74 608/-. HE HAS STATED THA T THERE WAS NO SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DOES NOT ARISE. HE ALSO STATED THAT IN FACT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN FACT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY INDIAN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE CO- OPERATIVE BANK AND THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN AS A SECU RITY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSION EXPLAINING THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL POSITIONS WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE ABOVE NAMED APPELLANTS HAVE FILED AN APPEAL B EFORE HON. TRIBUNAL BEING ITA NO. 1496 TO 1504/A/2010 AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 30.3.2010 FOR A.Y.2002-03 BY CIT(A)-IV BARODA WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAD CHALLENGED THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS AND VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT. 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST CALLED SURAJBA FAMILY TRUS T WHICH OWNED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CALLED FORD HOUSE M.D. ROAD A NAND. M/S. INDIA AUTOMOBILES HAD TAKEN LOANS FROM CHHAROTAR NA GRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD (FOR SHORT CNSB) WHEREAS ONE DINDAYAL UPDA HAY CO-OP. CREDIT SOC. LTD. HAD PLACED DEPOSITS WITH THE SAID BANK. ON COMING TO KNOW THE WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION OF CNSB AN UNDERS TANDING WAS REACHED BETWEEN M/S. INDIA AUTOMOBILES AND THE SAID CREDIT SOCIETY WHEREBY THE OUTSTANDING LOANS WERE TO BE ADJUSTED A GAINST THE DEPOSITS OF THE SOCIETY AND AS A SECURITY THEY EXECUTED A B ANAKHAT ON 6.2.2002 WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION W AS RS.12 LAKH AND RS.17 LAKH WERE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION. THIS AGGREGA TE OF RS.29 LAKH WAS ADJUSTED BY WAY OF RS.27 15 427 TOWARDS THE OUT STANDING AND ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -4- BALANCE RS.1 84 573 WERE PAID BY CHEQUE TO THE CRED IT SOCIETY. LATER ON THIS AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED BY ANOTHER AGREEMENT D ATED 15.10.2004 WHEREBY RS.24 LAKHS WERE TREATED AS INTEREST BEARIN G LOAN WITH MONTHLY INSTALMENT OF RS.60 000 TOWARDS RE-PAYMENT. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN ELABORATELY STATED BY SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.2.2007 BY DDIT(INV) BARODA (SEE PAGE 12-16) AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE. 3. SUBMISSIONS : 3.1 AT THE OUTSET THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IMPUG NED ADDITION BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARI ES OF SURAJBA FAMILY TRUST IS IN ITSELF ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE NEI THER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 6.2.2002 NOR THE AGREEMENT DT. 15.10.200 4 WAS EXECUTED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE SAID TRUST AND UNDER THE AUTHOR ITY /POWERS CONFERRED BY THE TRUST DEED OR IN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. EVEN SHRI ARVIND PATEL IN REPLY TO QUESTION-4 OF HIS SAID STA TEMENT HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE FORD HOUSE PROPERTY B ELONGED TO SURAJBA FAMILY TRUST. IT WAS ALSO REPEATED IN REPLY TO QUE STION-6. M/S.ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P. LTD. WAS A TENANT AS STATED IN REPLY TO QUESTION-7 BY HIM. EVEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS D ULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE TRUST FOR EARLIER YEARS AS PER THE SAI D REPLY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE SAID PRO PERTY WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT THERE COULD NOT BE A VALID AND LEGAL TRANSFER OF THE SAID PROPERTY EITHER UNDER THE INCOME-TAX LAW O R TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. HENCE THERE DOES NOT ARISE ANY QUES TION OF CHARGING SO CALLED CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARY PRESUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE AFORESAID AGREEMENTS AMOU NTED TO TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AS ALLEGED BY AO. 3.2 NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE THE APPEL LANT SUBMITS THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN M/S.INDIA AUTOMOBILES AND D INDAYAL UPADHYAY CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. BY AGREEMENT DT . 6.2.2002 WAS A MERE ADJUSTMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS OR THE FIXED DEPOSI T/ LOAN LIABILITY. AS STATED BY SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL IN HIS STATEMENT B OTH THESE PARTIES HAD MUTUALLY AGREED TO ADJUST THEIR DUES WITH CNSB IN V IEW OF THE WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE BANK. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT WAS MERELY AN UNDERSTANDING BET WEEN THE BORROWER AND THE DEPOSITOR OF THE BANK WHICH HAD NO THING TO DO WITH THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE SAID TRUST. THE FORD HOUS E PROPERTY WAS OFFERED AS A SECURITY TECHNICALLY IT WILL BE CALLED AS A C OLLATERAL SECURITY TO THE SAID SOCIETY BY M/S.INDIA AUTOMOBILES TILL THE REPA YMENT OF LOAN WAS MADE BY IT. THE FACT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THESE TWO PARTIES WAS ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DUES AND THE FORD HOUSE WAS OFFERED AS A SECURITY IS EVIDENCED FROM THE FACT THAT ARVIND AUT OMIBLES P. LTD. HAS DISCHARGED THE LIABILITY BY EQUAL INSTALLMENTS OF R S.60 000/- WITH INTEREST ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -5- AS PER THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FROM THE BOOKS OF THE SOCIETY PLACED AT PAGE-41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS CAN ALSO BE PROVED BY THE FACT THAT THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS FIXED AT RS.29 LAKHS KEE PING IN VIEW THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS.27 15 417/- BY M/S.INDI A AUTOMOBILES/ ARVIND AUTOMOBILES P. LTD. AND BALANCE RS.1 84 573/- PAID BY CHEQUE SO AS TO MAKING IT RS.29 LAKHS WHICH WAS THE FIXED DEPOSITS WITH CNSB BY THE CREDIT SOCIETY. YET ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE APPRECIAT ED IS THAT RS.17 LAKHS WAS THE AMOUNT TO BE SPENT TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION WHE REAS THE VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTED PORTION WAS ONLY RS.12 LAKHS. THE COVENANT RELATING TO RS.17 LAKHS WAS MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SO AS TO MAKE IT TO RS.29 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WHEN THE AFORESAID AGREEMENTS WE RE NEITHER INTENDED NOR ACTUALLY ACTED UPON AS SALE AGREEMENT NO LIABILITY TO CAPITAL GAIN AROSE UNDER IT. 3.3 THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT RS.29 LAKHS FIXED UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NOT THE CONSIDERATION OF SO-CALL ED SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT IN AN AGREEM ENT TO SALE OR EVEN IN AN AGREEMENT IN NATURE OF SECTION 53A OF T.P.ACT T HE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRUST HAS NOT BEEN PAID ANY RUPEE BY WAY OF SAL E CONSIDERATION BY THE CREDIT SOCIETY. THE TERMS RELATING TO PAYMENT OF RS.29 LAKHS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE SAID TWO PARTIES RELATES TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DUES WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAID TRUST. THEREFORE UNLESS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OWNER-VENDOR AND THE PURCHASER THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IS FIXED THEREIN SUCH AN AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS TRANSFER EVEN UNDER SEC TION 2(47) (V) OF THE ACT. 3.4 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE M ATTER THE ARRANGEMENT MUTUALLY AGREED AS PER DEED DT. 6.2.200 2 WAS CANCELLED BY AGREEMENT DT. 15.10.2004 AND THE STATUS QUO WAS MAI NTAINED. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO TRANSFER LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN. 3.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE PRICE OF THE BU ILDING WAS FIXED AT RS.12 LAKHS WHEREAS RS.17 LAKHS WAS TO BE TREATED T OWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE CARRIED OUT ON IT. HENCE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY COULD NOT BE TAKEN AT RS.29 LAKHS BY AO AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.12 LAKHS AND CAPITAL GAIN WOR KED OUT ACCORDINGLY. 3.6 AS REGARDS THE LEGAL GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT (A) THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY CIT(A) TO TAX CAPITAL G AIN IN A.Y.2002-03 IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS POWERS (SEE CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LTD. VS. ITO ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -6- [155 ITR 729] AND SLP IS REJECTED [187 ITR 43] (ST. ). SECTION 150 ONLY LIFTS THE BAN OF LIMITATION TO GIVE EFFECT TO ORDER S THAT MAY BE MADE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDI CTION. A FINDING IN TERMS OF SECTION 150 CAN ONLY BE THAT WHICH IS NECE SSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A PARTI CULAR YEAR. SIMILARLY DIRECTIONS CAN ONLY REFERRED TO THE DIRECTIONS WHIC H THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN ISSUE UNDER THE POWERS CONFERRED ON H IM. (B) EVEN OTHERWISE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF THE BENEFICIARIES HAS BEEN U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 AS STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER PROVISO T O SECTION 147 OF FOUR YEARS HAD EXPIRED WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2003-04 WAS MADE BY AO ON 27.12.2007. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THERE WAS FAILURE OR OMISSION ON PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT. HE ALSO FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI INDRAVADAN PATEL MANAGER OF DIN DAYAYAL UPADYAY CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. IN WHIC H HE HAS DEPOSED THAT THOUGH THEY HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCH ASE OF THE PROPERTY HOWEVER THAT WAS JUST A SECURITY TO SAFEGUARD THE LOAN IN THE ACCOUNT OF INDIA AUTOMOBILES AND NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY PURCH ASED BY THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF ITS BANK ACC OUNT WITH THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK POINTING OUT THAT THE LOAN WAS ACTUALLY PAID B Y THE INDIA AUTOMOBILE WITH INTEREST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1 74 608/- AS CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED U PON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESS MENT WAS REOPENED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-20 04 AND THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS CHARGED AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HE HAS STATED THAT T HE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THA T THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE GUIDELINES IN THE CASE OF GKN DRI VESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -7- ITO 259 ITR 19 WHICH IS TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS CHALLENGED. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD AS UNDER: WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT 1961 IS ISSUED THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE THE RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRES TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHI N A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REASONS THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO F ILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOU ND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS PER THE ABOVE GUIDELINES IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CHALLENGE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HE HAS TO FIRST FILE RETURN AND THEN SEEKS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE. THE AO IS BOUND TO FURNISH THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE RECEIPT OF THE REASONS THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND THE AO IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKI NG ORDER. ADMITTEDLY THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. I AM THERE FORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE ABOVE CA SE. MOREOVER THE FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT (I) THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS (II) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND (III) INDIAN AUTOMOBILE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND THE AGREE MENT TO SALE WAS ONLY FOR PROVIDING SECURITY OF THE ABOVE LOAN WHICH IS ULTI MATELY PAID WITH INTEREST WOULD ALSO REQUIRE VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HE IS DIRECTED FIRST TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER IF HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS VALIDLY REOPENED THEN HE WILL PROCE ED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN WHICH HE WILL EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES FACT UAL CONTENTIONS. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. THE FACTS AND GROUNDS IN ALL OTHER CASES ARE IDE NTICAL EXCEPT SOME VARIATION IN THE QUANTUM. THEREFORE FOR THE DETAI LED DISCUSSION ABOVE WE SET ITA.NO.1496/AHD/2010 AND 10 OTHERS -8- ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE CA SE OF OTHER ASSESSEES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR R E-ADJUDICATION AS PER OUR DIRECTION ABOVE. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY 2010. SD/- (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 30-07-2010 VK* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR ITAT. BY ORDER DR ITAT AHMEDABAD