The ITO, Ward-5(2),, Ahmedabad v. Om Prasad Infrastructure Limited,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2103/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 210320514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAACO2332E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2103/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-5(2),, Ahmedabad
Respondent Om Prasad Infrastructure Limited,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 11-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 11-05-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 11.5.10 DRAFTED ON:11.05.2010 ITA NO.2103/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2) C.U.SHAH COLLEGE BLDG. 2 ND FLOOR AHMEDABAD VS. OM PRASAD INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. T-1 PANCHTIRTH APPTT. OPP. KALUPUR BANK VASTRAPUR AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AAACO 2332E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DR. JAYANT JAVERI SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XI AHMEDABAD DATED 08.03.2007. 2. GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS AS UND ER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - XI AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FROM RS. 14 28 505/- TORS. 2 85 701/-. 3. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- - 2 - THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER S ECTION 144 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 DATED 30-03-2006 PASSE D BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2) AHMEDABAD DETERMININ G THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL INCOME AT RS.71 73 740/- AS AGAIN ST TOTAL LOSS OF RS.1 77 718/- DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. WHILE F INALIZING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS TO THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. AGGRIEVED OF TH E SAID ORDER THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED A ND RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING SHRI BHADRESH R. SHAH C.A. APPEARED FOR THE APPELL ANT AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS OBJECTI NG TO THE A.O'S ACTION THE A. R OF THE APPELLANT HAD FI LED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ISSUES SO RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT 1951. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE A. R. ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR CONVENIEN CE SAKE :- '3. OUR CLIENT HAS ENTERED INTO AN SUB- CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH BACKBONE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. THE COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 4. AS PER THE SUB CONTRACT AGREEMENT OUR CLIENT WAS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OF SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AT TAHIRPUR DELHI. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY SHRI KASHYAPBHAI JOSHI WAS LOOKING AFTER THE PROJECT. UNFORTUNATELY HE WAS ARRESTED FOR DEFAULT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF THE COMPANY TO SABARMATI CO.OP. BANK. HE WAS IMPRISONED FOR A PERIOD OF 21 MONTHS AND 17 DAYS I.E. FROM 10-01-2004 TO 27- 10-2005. - 3 - 6. ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE UNFORTUNATE EVENT THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION WORK UNDER TAKEN BY THE COMPANY AT DELHI COULD NOT BE EXECUTED IN TIME AND WAS ULTIMATELY SUSPENDED. 3.1. OVER AND ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE A. R. T HAT ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VOUCHERS BANK STATEMENTS AND OT HER RECORDS OF THE COMPANY WERE AT DELHI IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ABOVE NAMED PRINCIPAL COMPANY AND DUE DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH WORK THE ABOVE COMPANY DID NOT RET URN ANY OF THE RECORDS TO THE APPELLANT. THESE FACTS WERE I NTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 28-03-2006. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE A. R. THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS S UPPORTED BY NECESSARY DOCUMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 29-03-2006 AS AVAILABLE FROM THE COMPUTER RECORDS. 3.1.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U.S 144 OF THE ACT MAY BE ANNULLED. 3.2. AS IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GENUINELY PREVENTED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF COMPUTERIZED BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND THE A.O. ALSO WAS FORCED TO COMPLETE T HE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF I. T. ACT. THEREFORE THIS G ROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14 28 505/- OUT OF EXPENSES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 4.1. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. THAT EXPENSES OF R S.14 28 505/- COMPRISE OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES :- ELECTRIC EXPENSES. RS.2 89 354/- GUEST HOUSE RENT. RS. 33 0 00/- INSURANCE EXPENSES. RS. 22.969/- SECURITY CHARGES. RS. 1 69 628/- GEEP RENT. RS. 18 000/- - 4 - RENT ROLLERS. RS.1 92 000/- WATER PROOFING CHARGES. RS.6 98 554/- RS.14 28 505/- 4.1.2. ALL THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND HENCE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DISALLOWING 100% OF SUCH EXPENSES. THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE FILED WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO AUD ITED. 4.1 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE A. R. THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUS TIFIED AND PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 4.2. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN PERUSED. THE DETAILS PRODUCED BY THE A. R. AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMINED. 4.2.1. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE DISAL LOWANCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MAT ERIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION INCU RRED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVE LY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OR THEY ARE IN NATURE OF BOGUS. FURTHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED BY T AX AUDITORS AND THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS WITH RE GARD TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES OF THE EN TIRE EXPENSES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING T O RS.14 28 505/- IS THEREFORE AT HIGHER SIDE. THE A. O. HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT WITHOUT EXPENSES THE APP ELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE CARRIED ON CONSTRUCTION WORKS. THERE FORE HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE I AM INCLI NED TO CONFIRM ONLY 20% OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.14 28 505/-. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - XI AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING THE ADDIT ION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE BR ICK PURCHASE ETC. FROM RS. 50 00 000/- TO RS. 5 00 000/-. - 5 - 5. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- 5. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 00 000/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXP ENSES AS MENTIONED IN PARA-16 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE A . R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS HAS BE EN ADVANCED FOR GROUND NUMBER 2 REFERRED AS ABOVE AND PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 5.2. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF FINDINGS GIVEN BY ME WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 REFERRED AS ABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES OF THE MAJOR PORTION OF EXPENSES THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.50 00 000/- IS FOR RAW MATERIALS LIKE BRICKS CE MENT STEEL DUST AND OTHERS. THE EXPENSES ARE ALSO TOWARDS DIES EL WOOD SALES-TAX AND OTHER ASPECT. THE APPELLANT HAS CARRI ED ON CONSTRUCTION WORK WHICH INVOLVES SEVERAL EXPENSES LIKE RAW MATERIALS LABOUR CHARGES ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS AL SO INCURRED SALES TAX EXPENSES. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE DISBELI EVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE ONLY BOGUS CLAIMS. NON PRODUCTIO N OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS IS EXPLAINED THAT AFTER THE ARREST OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE PRINCIPAL IN DELHI REFUSED ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SAI D DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A. O. THEREFORE THE FACT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD CARRIED ON THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WHICH WAS ABORTED DUE TO HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH NON CLEARANCE OF CO-OPERA TIVE BANK LOAN. HENCE TAKING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 L AKHS OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 LAKHS. THEREFORE T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - XI AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES LIKE SALARY WAGES ETC. FROM RS. 5 00 000/-TO RS. 50 000/-. - 6 - 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 00 000/- OUT OF RS.42 15 670/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY WAGES ETC. IT IS SEEN IN ABSENCE OF DETA ILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. 6.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE A . R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS HAS BE EN ADVANCED FOR GROUND NUMBER 2 AND 3 REFERRED AS ABO VE AND PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 6.2. HAVING .CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF FINDINGS GIVEN BY ME WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 AND 3 REFERRED AS ABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A. O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING HEAVY DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS SALA RY AND WAGES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. 0. AMOUNTING TO RS.5 00 000/- IS THEREFORE AT HIGHER SIDE. HENCE I AM INCLINED TO CONFIRM ONLY RS.50 000/- CUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. 8. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT ON 16.03.2009 THROUGH REGISTERED POST WITH A.D. FIXING THE HEARING ON 30.04.2009 WHICH W AS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.03.2009 AS EVIDENCED BY THE ACKNOWLE DGEMENT CARD OF POST OFFICE PLACED ON RECORD. NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DA TE OF HEARING FIXED AND HENCE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.03.2010 AND NOT ICE WAS ISSUED ON 18.02.2010 BY REGISTERED POST WITH A.D. AND THE SAM E WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 22.02.2010 AS EVIDENCED BY THE ACKNOWLE DGEMENT CARD OF POST OFFICE PLACED ON RECORD. NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DA TE OF HEARING FIXED AND HENCE ONCE AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.05.2 010 AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 25.03.2010 BY REGISTERED POST WITH A.D. A ND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.04.2010 AS EVIDENCED BY THE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF POST OFFICE PLACED ON RECORD. NONE WAS PRESENT O N THE DATE OF HEARING - 7 - FIXED. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE UNDI SPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ATTENDED ANY OF THE HEARING FIXED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WA S COMPELLED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE AC T. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUCH ASSESSMENT MADE DISALLOWA NCE OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- ELECTRIC EXPENSES. RS.2 89 354/- GUEST HOUSE RENT. RS. 33 000/- INSURANCE EXPENSES. RS. 22.969/- SECURITY CHARGES. RS. 1 69 628/- GEEP RENT. RS. 18 000/- RENT ROLLERS. RS.1 92 000/- WATER PROOFING CHARGES. RS.6 98 554/- RS.14 28 505/- RS.50 00 000/- OUT OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- A) BRICKS PURCHASE 13 28 121 B) CEMENT PURCHASES 41 02 432 C) DIESEL 18 24 897 D) DUST PURCHASE 46 53 824 E) AGGREGATE 10MM 29 66 367 F) AGGREGATE 20MM 46 86 786 G) CEMENT RECOVERY 79 49 345 H) STEEL RECOVERY 2 83 07 655 I) SHUTTERING MATERIAL 41 89 036 J) WOOD PURCHASE 27 08 905 K) REINFORCEMENT WORK EXP. 12 22 598 L) SUTTERING WORK EXP. 17 46 403 M) SAKES TAX 15 49 215 TOTAL RS.6 72 35 584 - 8 - SALARY AND WAGES 10 91 311 LABOUR EXPENSES. 30 08 805 LABOUR SUPPLY EXPENSES 1 15 554 TOTAL 42 15 670/- 10. IN APPEAL LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE AS EXCESSIVE AND ALLOWED REL IEF OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT:- OUT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES RS.11 42 804/- OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE BRICK PURCHASE ETC. RS.45 00 000/- OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES LIKE SALARY WAGES ETC. RS.4 50 000/- AGAINST THE ABOVE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT()A HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNRE ASONABLE. HE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO BE REVERSED. 12. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) REDUCED OR DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY SIMPLY OBSER VING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WERE EXCESSIVE. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DOES NOT CONTAI N THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(APPEALS) ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXCESSIVE. FURTHER THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE - 9 - LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONSIDE RED THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF ALLOWED BY HIM AS REASONABLE EXPENSES HAS NO T ALSO NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD . WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE WHICH HE DISALLOWED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION SOME ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECT ION 144 CANNOT BE RULED OUT BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIAL OR BASIS. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NO T BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE CONCLUDED THE EXP ENSES IN QUESTION AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE PRAYER OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESTORATION OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW EVEN IN A CASE OF A BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT ONLY THOSE EXPENSES WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE ON THE BA SIS OF SOME MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ONLY CAN BE DISALLOWED BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING AFRE SH AS PER LAW IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL WHICH HE WISHES TO PRODUCE BEF ORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES UNDER A PPEAL WERE REASONABLE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE B EFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. - 10 - 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. PARAS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XI A HMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.05.2010 --------------- -- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 13.05.2010 ---- --------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 13.05.2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 13.05.2010 ---------- --------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 13.05.2010 -------- ------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 14.05.2010 --------- ----------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.05.2010 ------ -------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- -------------------