Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh Jamadar, Bharuch v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2,, Baroda

ITA 749/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019 | Result: Partly Allowed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 74925614 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ACAPJ5829N
Bench Surat
Appeal Number ITA 749/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh Jamadar, Bharuch
Respondent The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 27-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 27-07-2017
First Hearing Date 27-07-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 09-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH JM & SHRI O.P.MEENA AM / I.T.A. NO . 748 / AHD / 201 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI BABUBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJARAT) . PAN: ACAPJ5829N / VS. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 BAROADA. / I.T.A. NO . 749 / AHD / 201 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI VIJESH PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJARAT) . PAN:ACHPJ7661F / VS. THE ACIT CENTRAL C IRCLE - 2 BARODA. / I.T.A. NO . 7 50 / AHD / 201 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI MEHMOODBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJARA) . PAN/GIR NO. : ACAPJ5828D / VS. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 BARODA. / I .T.A. NO . 55 / AHD / 201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI VIJESH PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJARAT) . PAN:ACHPJ7661F / VS. THE ITO WARD - 4 BHARUCH / I.T.A. NO . 56 / AHD / 201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI BABUBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJARAT) . PAN: ACAPJ5829N / VS. THE ITO WARD - 4 BHARUCH . / I.T.A. NO . 400 / AHD / 201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 ) SHRI MEHMOOD P. JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH (GUJA RA) . / VS. THE ITO WARD - 4 BHARUCH . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACAPJ 5828 D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. T. THAKKAR REVENUE BY: SHRI MAYANK PANDEY ( SR. DR) ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 2 / DATE OF H EARING: 03 / 10 / 201 9 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 / 11 / 201 9 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH JM: THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL S AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y .2007 - 08 . ITA. NO. 748 /AHD /201 1 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 . 12 .201 0 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.20 07 - 08 . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD I F AND IN LAW IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.49 28 966/ - UT OF ADDITION OF RS.65 16 197/ - MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME 13.08.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 10 160/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 69 284/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED HIS INCOME FROM SHARE OF PROFIT FROM VARIOUS FIRMS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE OF FICE PREMISES OF JAMADAR GROUPS CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS/DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. ACCORDING TO ANNEXURE A/16 IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 3 CERTAIN PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM ONE MAJMUDAR FAMILY BY EXECUTING THREE SALE DEEDS IN THE NAMES OF THREE BROTHE RS (I) VIJESH P. JAMADAR (II) BABUBHAI P. JAMADAR & (III) MEHMOOD P. JAMADAR ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 27.07.2006 FOR THE F.Y.2006 - 07. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF THE LAND ADMEASURING 1587.23 SQ. METERS. AS PER THESE THREE SALE DEEDS TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.11 90 000/ - WAS PAID AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ETC. OF RS.2 97 700/ - WERE INCURRED. THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A/16 WAS A VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY ONE SHRI P. S. PRAJAPATI GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. AS PER THIS VALUATION REPORT THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE SAID PRO PERTY I.E. SURVEY NO. 464 AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS.2 07 38 590/ - AS ON 28.12.2006. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 28.07.2006 SHOWN THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.11 90 000/ - ONLY. T HE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.11 90 000/ - WAS SHOWN LESS TO RS.2 07 38 590/ - WITHIN A SPAN OF 6 MONTHS. THE VALUE HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 07 38 590/ - . THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT LOCALITY OF STATION ROAD WHICH WAS THE COMMERCIAL AREA. FURTHER AT PAGE NO. 72 OF ANNEXURE A/17 IMPOUN DED DURING THE SURVEY AT HIS OFFICE T HE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER/JOTTINGS ON THE PAPER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - ANNEXURE A/17 - PAGENO.72 CITY BUS SERVICE S. NO. SQ. MT. 463 170.94 855000 464 1176.47 464 - A 61.50 1747000 465 47.90 466 52.59 178.32 46 7 67.76 892000 1857.23 17038.59 SQ. MT. GURURAJABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI MAJMUDAR 46 1232.97 PARBHABEN 66 3100000 THE PAPER WAS RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM MAJMUDAR GR OUP. THE FIGURE OF MEASUREMENT WAS MENTIONED IN THE THREE SALE DEEDS AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE NAMES OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF MAJMUDAR ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 4 FAMILY FROM WHOM THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WORKED OUT ON THIS PAP ER WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - (892000+3541000+3100000+1747000/ - ) THE FIGURE OF RS.17 47 000/ - WAS MENTIONED AGAINST SURVEY NO.464A ADMEASURING 61.50 SQ. METERS. THUS THE RATE PER SQ. METER WAS ALSO ASCERTAINABLE. THE COMBINED READINGS OF PAGE NO.5 9 OF ANNEXURE A/16 AND PAGE NO.72 OF ANNEXURE A/17 ALONGWITH THE FACT OF FURNISHING NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD LEADS TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION/INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED PROPERTY WAS AMOUNTING TO RS.2 07 38 590/ - OUT OF WHICH RS.11 90 000/ - HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE SALE DEEDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS THE NON - INCORPORATED SALE CONSIDERATION/INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.1 95 48 590/ - I.E. DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE SUM OF RS.2 07 38 590 - 11 90 000/ - . NOTICES WERE GIVEN AND AFTER THE FINDING NO PROPER REPLY THE INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF R S.65 16 197/ - WAS RAISED AGAINST ALL THE 3 PURCHASERS U/S 69 B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.66 26 360/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 3 5. ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE INTER - CONNECTED THEREFORE ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. IN FACT UNDER THESE ISSUES THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.49 28 966/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE VALUATION IS AFTER THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THE LAND BEING TENANT OF THE PROPERTY FROM 100 YEARS THEREFORE THE VALUE WAS LESS HENCE THE REGISTRY TRANSACTION IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT WAS PREPARED ON ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 5 ACCOUNT OF STUDY OF THE VISA PURPOSE WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ALSO SPECIFICALLY ARGUED THAT THE AO DID NOT REFER THE MATTER BEFORE TH E DVO THEREFORE THE DVO REPORT WHICH WAS MADE FOR FEE VALUE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION. WITH DUE REGARDS TO THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE AO RAISED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE DVO REPORT WHICH WAS GOT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE. VIJESH PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR ALONG WITH OTHER SHARE - HOLDER PURCHASE D THE LAND ON 27 . 07.2006 IN SUM OF RS.11 90 000/ - (THEY PA ID THE REGISTRATION CHARGES A SUM OF RS.2 97 700/ - ) . VALUATION REPORT WAS PREPARED ON 28.12.2006 BY SHRI P.S. PRAJAPATI GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AND ACCORDINGLY THE VALUE OF THE LAND WAS ASSESSED IN SUM OF R S.2 07 38 50 0/ - . DURING THE SURVEY OF JAMADAR GROU CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS/DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. ACCORDING TO A/16 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CERTAIN PROP ERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM ONE MAJ M U DAR FAMILY BY EXECUTING THREE SALE - DEEDS. AT PAGE NO. 59 OF ANNEXURE A/16 IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A VALUATION REPORT OF SURVEY NO. 464 IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SHOWN IN SUM OF RS.2 07 38 590/ - AS ON 28.12.2006. THE PAGE NO. 72 OF THE ANNEXURE NO. A/17 SPEAKS THAT THE PAYMENT IN SUM OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - WAS GIVEN TO THE SELLER I.E. MAJM U DAR FAMILY. THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGE 72 OF THE D OCUMENT A - 17 SPEAKS ABOUT THE PAYMENT WHICH BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE DISCUSSING THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND IN SUM OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - . HOWEVER AS PER THE DVO REPORT THE AO TOOK THE GAP FIGURE OF RS.1 95 48 590/ - . ( RS .2 07 38 590/ - - 11 90 000/ - ). THE SAID FIGURE WAS DIVIDED AMONG THREE BROTHERS I. E. PURCHASERS. UNDOUBTEDLY THE AO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN SUM OF RS .2 07 38 590/ - WHICH WAS BASED UPON THE P. S. PRAJAPATI GOVERNMENT APPROVAL VALUER. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.3 000 PER SQ. ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 6 MTR ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FACT THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS TENANT OF THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY T HE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY OF RS. 1 59 76 900/ - INSTEAD OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN BY DVO IN HIS REPORT IN SUM OF RS.2 07 38 590/ - ON 28.12.2006 . THUS THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS ASSESSED IN SUM OF RS.1 4 7 86 900/ - DIVIDED AMONG THREE BROTHERS IN SUM OF R S.49 28 966/ - AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. THE CIT(A) GRANTED THE RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE TENANT UPON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE DVO VALUED THE LAND AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE CAN SAY THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF ON ESTIMATION BASIS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE TENANT UPON THE LAND PURCHASED AND THE DVO REPORT WAS PREPARED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX M ONTHS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE FOUND THAT THREE PARA - METER IN THE ORDER TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE BASIS OF THE REGISTRATION SALE - DEED DATED 28.07.2006 IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN SHOWN A S UM OF RS.1190000/ - . THEREAFTER THE AO ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO PREPARED AFTER THE SIX MONTHS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF ON ESTIMATION BASIS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE TENANT UPON THE LAND PURCHASED AND THE VALUE OF PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 6 MONTHS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS TO BE SEEN WHICH PARA - METER CAN BE APPLIED JUSTIFIABLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION ABOUT THE PAGE N O. 72 ANNEXURE A/17 IN WHICH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID IN SUM OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - . THE CONTENTS REVEALED BY THE ANNEXURE A/17 PAGE NO. 72 SPEAKS ABOUT THE OVERALL CONSIDERATION IN SUM OF RS.10135000/ - ( 8 92 000 +3541000 +31000000/ - +47 47 000/ - ). THE FIGURE OF RS.1747000/ - WAS MENTIONED AGAINST SURV EY NO. 467A MEASURING 61.50 SQ.MT THUS RATE PER SQ. MT. WAS ASCERTAINABLE . I T SEEMS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS BROTHER S TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY IN SUM OF ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 7 RS.1 01 35 000/ - IN VIEW OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENTS PA G E - 72 OF ANNEXURE - A /16 & A/17 . W E OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SURVEY SHOULD BE RELIED UPON TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRANSACTION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE EXPLAINED THESE DOCUMENTS . PARTLY RELYING UPON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DUR ING SURVEY AND THE DVO REPORT CAUSED UNCERTAINTY . IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THE MENTIONED PROPERTY IN SUM OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - BECAUSE THIS AMOUNT CAME INTO NOTICE WITH THE PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE. NO REBUTTAL WAS FOUND . M OR EOVER WE NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT WAS WRITTEN ACCORDING TO THE K HASRA NUMBER ETC . AND PROPER PAYMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN. NOTHING CAME INTO NOTICED ABOUT THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING TENANT PURCHASE D THE PROPERTY IN SUM OF RS.11 90 000/ - . THE FIGURE WHICH I S NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED. . WE FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT COUPLE D WITH TH E ANNEXURE A/17 AND PAGE NO. 72 T HE ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL VALUE OF THE LAND NOWHERE SEEMS JUSTIFIABLE. NO ADDITION CAN BE BASED WITH THE SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. WE CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE BASIS OF THE ANNEXURE A/17 AND ANNEXURE A/16 AND ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN SUM OF RS.1 01 35 000/ - . THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO THE TUNE OF RS.33 78 337/ - . WE ARE INC LINED TO CONSIDERED THIS FACTS THAT THE TENANC Y OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DVO REPORT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND IS BELOW THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CIT(A). A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES W E DETERMIN ED THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN SUM OF R S.1 01 35 000 / - DIVI DED BY THREE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT IN SUM OF RS.33 78 337/ - HAS BEEN HELD TO BE JUSTIFIABLE FOR ADDITION AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THESE ISSUES ARE DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY BY PARTLY ALLOW E D. ITA. NOS.749/M/2011 & 750/M/2011 ITA NO. 748 TO 750/AHD/2011 & 55 56 & 400/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 8 6. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACT OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOV E W HILE DECIDING THE ITA. NO.748/AHD /201 1 THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IS ALSO THE SAME. THE FINDING GIVEN ABOVE WHILE DECIDIN G THE APPEAL BEARING ITA. NO.748 / AHD/2011 IS QUITE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE AS MUT ATIS MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEAL S ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED ON SIMILAR LINES . ITA. NOS. 55 56 & 400 /AHD /201 4 6 . SINCE WE UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 33 78 337/ - AGAINST EACH FOR PURCHASERS THEREFORE IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IN PENALTY CASE IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDING OF THE MENTIONED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF PENALTY AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW BY GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS ARE HEREBY ALLOWED . 7 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED ON MERITS AND THE PENALTY APPEALS ARE HEREBY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONO UNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 /11 /2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( O. P. MEENA ) (AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / SURAT DATED : 27 / 11 / 2019 / VIJAY PAL SINGH SR.PS COPY OF ORDER SENT TO - ASSESSEE/ AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SURAT