Assessee cannot take the pretext of 143(2) notice being not issued by AO where Notice is issued in continuation of assessment proceedings for year under consideration calling upon assessee to furnish various information/books of accounts/vouchers in order to enable AO to complete assessment proceedings.

The present Cross Appeals have been filed by the revenue as well as assessee against order dated 22/11/11 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-31 for assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds of appeal:

i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned CIT (A), upholding the validity of the assessment order, is arbitrary unjustified and bad in law. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.53,75,370/- made under section 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify the above grounds of Appeal.

PRAYERS :

i) The assessment order upheld by learned CIT (A) may kindly be declared nullity as the same is not in conformity with the legal provisions.

ii) The addition of Rs.53,75,370 made on account of unexplained expenses under section 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) may kindly be deleted .

The above grounds and relief claimed are independent and without prejudice to another.”

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld C1T (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,75,370/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) in respect of unaccounted cash receipt without disclosing the same into its books of account.

2. The order of Ld. C1T (A) is perverse in law and on facts. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

2. It is observed from the order sheet that the appeal was filed by assessee on 20/01/12 and date of hearing was mentioned as 22/03/2012, which is apparent from the acknowledgement-cum- notice. However on the said date application for adjournment was filed by assessee stating that no notice has been received intimating date of hearing and accordingly requested for an adjournment. The appeal was thus adjourned to 13/07/12.

Thereafter on 30/07/12 and on 27/12/12 the Bench was not functioning and accordingly the date of hearing was fixed on 10/06/13. A notice dated 08/03/13 was issued to assessee intimating the next date of hearing. On 10/06/13 an adjournment application was moved by assessee in lieu of which the matter was again adjourned to 14/10/13. On 14/10/13, as assessee had filed paper book the appeal was again adjourned to 17/02/14. Thereafter on 17/02/14, 12/06/14, 20/11/14 and 31/03/15 the Bench was not functioning accordingly the date was later on fixed on 26/06/15. On all the afore stated dates notices were issued to assessee intimating the date of hearing. On 26/06/15 none appeared on behalf of assessee and matter was adjourned to 10/09/15. Thereafter assessee has not appeared before this Tribunal subsequently on 30/11/15, 30/03/16, 28/05/16, 21/09/16, 23/01/17, 27/04/17, 03/08/17, 16/11/17 and 08/02/18. For all these dates notices intimating date of hearing have been served upon assessee, report of the same has been placed on record by the revenue. Today again neither any representative on behalf of assessee/assessee himself appeared before us, nor has any adjournment application been filed.

2.1. From the above conduct of assessee it is very clear that assessee is not interested in proceeding with the present appeal. Sufficient time and opportunity has been granted to assessee to present its case. We are therefore constrained to dispose of present appeals on merits, based upon paper book filed by assessee as well as the documents available on record, on the basis of arguments advanced by Ld. CIT DR.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

From assessment order it is observed that assessee did not file its return of income voluntarily before the due date under section 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the year under consideration. Notice under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued on 11/09/09 fixing the case on 18/09/09. Since none attended the proceedings nor any application for adjournment was filed on the relevant date, penalty proceedings under section 271F (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was initiated by Ld. AO and a show cause notice was issued on 28/01/10, in response to which assessee filed reply on 15/02/10 asking for an adjournment. Ld. AO accordingly issued fresh notice under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) once again on 09/09/10 fixing the case for hearing on 24/09/10, assessee in response to notice filed reply on 24/09/10 vide letter dated 24/09/10 requesting for 15 days time for preparation of return for the year under consideration. The case was accordingly adjourned to 30/09/10. On the said date assessee filed a letter wherein it furnished details in the format of return, by showing loss.

3.1. Ld. AO observed that assessee being a company was required to file its return of income for the year under consideration, on or before 30/09/08 under section 139(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) or else should have filed the return by 31/03/2010, under section 139(4) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as belated return. Ld.AO observed that assessee did not file its return under any of the above provisions. Ld.AO in order to arrive at the correct taxable income of assessee for the year under consideration considered the details filed by assessee.

Ld.AO observed from the details filed that assessee had shown against the authorised and subscription capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, whereas assessee has declared creditors of Rs.1,50,53,813/-without doing any business. From the audited balance sheet, it was observed by Ld.AO that assessee was having old liabilities and had given advances to various individuals and sister concerns etc., totalling to Rs.1,08,40,268/-. Further Ld.AO observed that assessee has declared cash in hand at Rs.23,40,735 as on 31/03/08 as against opening cash in hand of Rs.15,95,145/-as on 01/04/07. Assessee vide reply dated 01/11/10 submitted that the money was withdrawn from bank for making payments to the farmers. 3.2. Ld.AO further observed that assessee received payment of Rs.53,75,370/- from M/s. Virat Exim Pvt.Ltd. On a query raised by Ld.AO, assessee replied that no agreement was executed by it with the farmers nor it has executed any agreement with M/s Virat Exim Pvt.Ltd. However M/s. Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd had informed the Ld.AO vide their letter dated 22/11/10 that it had made the payment of Rs.53,75,370/- to assessee towards land development expenses and earth filling fee and there is no land purchase involved with assessee. It was also informed by M/s Virat Exim Pvt.Ltd that the said payment was made in lieu of an agreement with assessee and that the said agreement is not available, since it was destroyed in a fire that broke on 16/08/10 at their premises.

3.3. Since no documentary evidences were produced by assessee in support of any of its expenses, payments/cash received, Ld. AO made addition in the hands of assessee as under:

· addition on account of undisclosed expenditure made for development of land and earth filling Rs.53 75 370/-

· addition made on account of alleged payment received from the farmers Rs.53,75,370/-

4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT (A) apart from challenging the additions made by Ld.AO, assessee challenged validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) to be invalid as Assessing Officer had not issued the mandatory notice under section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

5. Ld. CIT (A) observed from the assessment records and decided the legal ground as under:

“If in time u/s 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) or in response to notice u/s 142(ii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) (as in the instant case) the return becomes invalid on the grounds if it is not in proper form or not signed and verified by the competent person as required u/s 140 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

The A.O has wrongly mentioned the return to be invalid in his anxiety to disallow the benefit of carry forward of loss to a belated return. So far as issue of notice 143(2) is concerned, the argument of the appellant is not correct. The AO has issued 142(1) notice on 08-10-2010 and also issued a separate notice dated same with a caption subject “Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 regarding" in the form of a questionnaire asking details on 29 points necessary for enabling him to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). Both the notices were issued on 08/10/2010 for compliance on 20.10.2010 before the completion of assessment. The notice u/s 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is over emphasized by the appellant ignoring the fact that the questionnaire as mentioned above dated 8-10-2010 has all the necessary ingredient of 143(2) notice. In the case of Ashok Chddha Vs ITO 337(ITR) 399 it has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para 14 of the judgment “ No specific notice was required under section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) when the notice in the present case as required under section 153A(A)(1)(a) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was already given. In addition, the two questionnaires issued to the assessee were sufficient so as to give notice to the assessee, asking him to attend the office of the AO in person or through a representative duly authorized in writing or produce or cause to be produced at the given time any documents,accounts and any other evidence on which he may rely in support of the return filed by him." In what manner the notice should be worded is not important as long as such notice in substance is given before asstt allowing opportunity to the assessee to prove the income returned and serves the purpose akin to a formal notice. Even if there is an omission or defect it is a curable defect u/s 292B (of Income Tax Act, 1961). In view of above discussion I held that there is no infirmity with the order u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and thus the argument of the appellant is rejected.”

5.1. In regard to the addition made by Ld.AO, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on account of undisclosed expenditure amounting to Rs.53,75,370/- under section 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and deleted the addition made by Ld.AO on account of alleged payment received from farmers amounting to Rs.63,75,370/-.

6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) revenue as well as assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

7. ITA No. 327/Del/12 (assessee’s appeal)

In the appeal filed by assessee, ground number (i) has been raised challenging validity of assessment order passed in the absence of notice under section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) which is alleged to have been not issued by Ld.AO.

8. Admittedly assessee had not filed its return of income under section 139(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) or 139 (4) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). It was upon the notice issued by Ld.AO under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) that assessee filed the return of income with the Assessing Officer instead of e-filing, which is mandatory for a company.

9. We have perused the paper book filed by assessee wherein notice issued under section 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) by Ld.AO dated 09/09/10 is placed at page 1. In response to the said notice assessee vide letter dated 30/09/10 submitted a return along with the audited accounts with Ld.AO. On perusal of the return of income so filed by assessee along with the audited accounts, Ld.AO issued notice dated 8/10/2010, calling for various details that would be necessary to determine correct income of assessee for year under consideration. In response to the same, assessee vide letter dated 01/11/10 filed query wise reply with Ld.AO, which is placed at page 11-15 of paper book. Thus it is very clear that assessee was very well aware about assessment proceedings having been initiated for the year under consideration on the basis of the returns filed by assessee in response to the notice issued under section 143(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

9.1. Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) reads as under:

143. Assessment (2) where a return has been furnished under section 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), or in response to notice under subsection (1) of section 142 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), the assessing officer or the prescribed income tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid the tax in any manner, shall serve upon the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified there in, either to attend the office of the assessing officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the assessing officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely upon in support of the return”.

9.2. On the bare perusal of the aforesaid subsection (2) of section 142 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) it is very clear that Assessing Officer has to call upon the assessee to attend the office for the purposes of carrying out the assessment proceedings or the Assessing Officer shall call upon the assessee to produce relevant evidences upon which assessee may rely upon in support of the return. On perusal of notice dated 08/10/10 issued by Ld.AO placed at page 8-10 of paper book, it is very much apparent that the same has been issued in continuation of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration wherein the Assessing Officer is calling upon assessee to furnish various information/books of accounts/vouchers in order to enable Ld. AO to complete the assessment proceedings, having regard to the return of income filed by assessee along with the audited accounts.

9.3. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the notice issued by Ld.AO dated 08/10/10 amounts to be the notice issued under section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee therefore cannot take the pretext of 143(2) notice being not issued by Ld.AO since the notice dated 08/10/10 makes it amply clear that the assessment proceedings have been initiated in the case of assessee for the relevant assessment year. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the observations of Ld. CIT (A) and the same is upheld.

10. Thus we are inclined to dismiss ground number (i) of assessee’s appeal.

11. Ground number (ii) has been raised by assessee against the addition being confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) under section 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) being unexplained expenditure.

11.1. On perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) assessee had submitted as under:

“This addition has been made on the reasoning that the appellant had allegedly carried some land filling work at some site belonging to M/s Virat Exim and must have incurred expenses in cash out of the books of accounts. The addition is made on the basis of an alleged statement made by some party known as Virat Exim who had settled the dues of the farmers to whom the appellant had made certain payments. The A.O. believed the concocted story of M/s Virat and that too without verifying the correctness of his claim and the reason for making it. The A.O. did not given an opportunity to the appellant before using statement against the appellant. The appellant says and submits that it had never done any filing work at any side forget only Virat. A wild remark made by some party cannot be the basis making u/s 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961). For carrying filling work worth rupees 53,00,000/- needs heavy work force, apparatus and vehicle etc. Nothing has been brought on record to prove that the appellant had carried on filing activities and has incurred expenses except a wild remark made by some party. The appellant’s books of accounts were audited and the assessing officer is bound to accept it unless contrary is proven. It is an strange affairs that the appellant would not claim expenses against the filing work if they have been incurred. It is also surprising that the same amount of Rs. 53,75,370/- has been taken as expenses incurred against the alleged same amount of filing receipt. That shows non application of mind on the part of assessing officer. No evidence of whatsoever nature was produced by the Virat Exim to prove that filing work was done by the appellant. The said Virat Exim even did not disclose the sight at which filing was done.

The fact is that M/s virat Exim was the middleman between the appellant and he farmers from whom the appellant had agreed to purchase land for development and had advance an amount of Rs.78,24,000/-. M/s Virat stood a guarantor and when deal could not got through, it had to return appellant’s money and in lieu of the amount of Rs. 53,75,370/- the appellant had to forego balance amount of Rs.24,48,360/- and which was to be received by this party alone. The appellant is not aware of the further development.

The appellant company had received back an amount of Rs. 53,75,370/- in the relevant assessment year from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. out of total advances to the tune of Rs. 78,24,000/- made to various farmers for the purchase of agricultural land at Bahadurgarh in the year 2005 and 2006. All those payment were made by “A/c Payee Cheques” and the amount received from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. was received by “All Payee Cheque". During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer was requested to verify the genuineness of the amount received from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. However, different story was cooked by them. A notice under section 133(6) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued to M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. by the assessing officer to verify the genuineness of the transaction. However, the reply received from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. was not brought into the knowledge of the appellant company. Appellant reiterate that the addition was made purely relying on the statement made by M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. that the amount was paid to the appellant company towards the earth filing expenses incurred by the appellant company. The addition was made merely on the basis of presumption and suspicion. The factum of the reply should have been brought into the knowledge of the appellant company and the AO should have conducted independent investigation. The reply of M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. should have been confronted with the appellant company,. The appellant company should have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the party. The addition was made without affording an opportunity to the appellant company to establish the truth. The addition was made on the basis of a third party statement. No evidence was brought on record to prove that appellant company had actually received the amount on account of earth filing expenses. The reply given by M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. itself creates doubt that the all the documents executed between the appellant company and the latter were destroyed in fire on 16th August 2010.

The appellant company once again submits that the addition of Rs.53,75,370/- was made only on the basis of presumption and suspicion and nothing has been brought on record to establish the same. The addition was merely made on the basis of the statement of a third party. No corroboratory evidence in this regard was brought on record by the A.O.”

11.2. Ld. CIT (A) decided the issue by observing as under:

(ii) That addition of Rs. 53,75,3701- was made u/s 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The appellant argued that the addition is made on whims and fancy of the assessing officer and based on presumptions. It is stated that a wild remark by some party cannot be the basis of addition. It is stated by the AO that the appellant has received payment of Rs. 53,75,370/- from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. Mohali. In its reply to the AO, the appellant had informed that there was an agreement with M/s Virat Exim (P) Ltd., however, M/s Virat Exim (P) Ltd. informed vide its letter dated 22.11.2010 that it had made payment of Rs. 53,75,370/- to the appellant towards land development expenses and earth filling fee and there was no land purchase involved with the above mentioned party against this payment. It has further been informed in the above mentioned letter that U-Like Promoters Pvt. Ltd. had raised an invoice on Virat Exim (P) Ltd against above referred services and also the payment was directly remitted to its account and the details of other persons involved to whom M/s U- Like Promoters had paid the amount was not available to them.

Besides it was also informed by M/s Virat Exim (P) Ltd. that an agreement for payment of Rs. 53,75,370/- between Virat Exim (P) Ltd. and M/s U-Like Promoters Pvt. Ltd. was executed and payment was made in accordance with this, however, they don’t have the agreement copy as their records, documents were destroyed in fire on 16th Aug, 2010 at the premises A-40A, Industrial Area, Phase VIII Extn, Mohali(PB). A copy of DDR as proof was filed before AO. The appellant stated before the AO that there was no agreement with M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd., Whereas, latter informed the AO that they had an agreement which was lost in fire on 16th August 2010.

It is evident from above that the payment was made towards land development expenses and earth filling fee and there was no land purchase involved with respect to the said payment. The copy of agreement might also be available with the appellant, however not declared or produced for clarification either at assessment stage or appellate stage. The appellant wants to take advantage of loss of agreement of M/s virat Exim (P) Limited in fire. When M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. has stated that money was paid for a particular purpose there was no reason to disbelieve the same. If the payment was made for purchase of land there was no compelling reason to conceal this fact. When the payment is not denied, why the purpose shall be concealed? The demand of the appellant for cross examination is unwarranted. In the case of T.D. Nadar Vs CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 Mad. it is held that the department can rely on any evidence though it has not been subjected to cross examination. There is no denial of natural justice if the AO refuses to enable an informant for cross examination. However if a witness is examined in the presence of the assessee he must be allowed to cross examine. No corroboratory evidence was brought before me to establish that the money has gone for a different purpose other than development expenditure. There is no logic as to why M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. shall transfer money to the appellant account for purchasing land and not pay directly to the farmers. Since the amount was stated to be reimbursement of development and earth filling expenditure and the appellant has not shown any such expenditure in the books, the logical inference is that it has met such expenditure from undisclosed sources. The AO has rightly added the amount under 69C of IT Act and the addition of Rs. 53,75,370/- is thus confirmed.

11.3. As has been recorded by Ld. CIT (A) there is a total contradiction in submissions advanced by assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT (A) vis-a-vis M/s Virat Exim regarding existence of agreement between both the parties. It is observed from the submissions advanced by assessee before Ld. CIT (A) that assessee has contended to have received back the said amount from M/s Virat Exim out of total advances to tune of Rs.78,24,000/- made to various farmers for purchase of agricultural land in the year 2005 and 2006. It has also been alleged by assessee before Ld.CIT(A) that information sought by Ld.AO from M/s Virat Exim under section 133(6) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was not provided to assessee, which is the basis of addition in the hands of assessee. It is observed that neither Ld.AO nor Ld.CIT(A) conducted any enquiries/verification regarding the same. Neither Ld. CIT (A) not Ld.AO has verified the genuineness of the amount received from M/s Virat Exim.

11.4. Most importantly it is observed that Ld.AO has made the addition in the hands of assessee under section 69C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) which is unexplained expenditure, however, from the submissions made by assessee before Ld.CIT (A) as well as observations of Ld.CIT (A) himself, it appears that it is an amount received by assessee from M/s Virat Exim, and therefore cannot be considered to be an expenditure in the hands of assessee.

11.5. Under such circumstances we deem it fit and proper to set aside this issue back to the file of Ld.AO for proper verification as per law.

11.6. Ld.AO shall call upon assessee as well as M/s Virat Exim to ascertain genuineness of amount received by assessee, in the light of documents/evidences advanced by both the parties. Ld.AO shall give opportunity to assessee, and confront with any submissions made/statements given by any representatives of M/s.Virat Exim, along with any documents/evidences submitted by M/s Virat Exim. Upon receiving submissions as called for to the satisfaction of Ld. AO, Ld. AO shall then conduct necessary enquiries/investigations to determine correct income and its nature in the hands of assessee.

12. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

13. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

14. ITA No.590/del/2012 (Department’s appeal)

Only ground raised by revenue is against the addition of Rs.53,75,370/- being deleted by Ld. CIT (A).

14.1. During the first appellate proceedings assessee submitted as under:

Addition of Rs. 53,75,370/-for alleged undisclosed income in the books of account.

An addition of Rs. 53,75,370/- was made on the allegation that the appellant company had received the amount of Rs. 53,75,370/- in cash from various farmers as the appellant company had reduced the advances given to the farmers during the financial year in question and the same has not been recorded in the books of accounts. The appellant company submits that no corroboratory evidence was brought on record by the assessing officer to establish the fact that the appellant company had actually received the amount in question as cash. The addition was made purely on the basis of presumption and suspicion and without investigating the facts. No evidence was brought on record by the assessing officer to establish the fact that the alleged amount was received in cash and the same was not recorded in the books of accounts. The amount received from M/s Virat Exim Pvt. Ltd. being representative of the farmers was received towards the advances and has been rightly credited to advances account no. cash of whatsoever nature was received from the farmers. The appellant will file an affidavit on this if directed to do so.

The above submissions/contentions are independent and without prejudice one another.

In view of above submission and case law, it is prayed that the assessment order may be declared a nullity or in alternative above addition may kindly be deleted.

15. Assessee is casting the burden on Ld.AO to prove that the alleged amount was received in cash. It has been submitted that amount has been received from M/s Virat Exim who was the representative of farmers as advance and no cash has been received from farmers.

15.1. It is observed that Ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue by observing as under:

“(iii) The AO further added a sum of Rs. 53,75,370/- on the ground that the appellant company had received the amount of Rs. 53,75,370/- in cash from various farmers as the company in its books reduced the advances given to the farmers during the FY in question and the same has not been recorded in the books. It was argued that the addition is based on presumption and suspicion and without investigating the facts. I have considered the rival submissions. The A.O. has not brought any evidence on record of any cash payment and only drew an inference from reduced liability. I do not agree with the inference drawn by the A.O. If the amount on account of advances given to the farmers for purchase of agriculture land are reducing, it might have been due to two reasons:

(i) either the advances are returned by the farmers due to failure of deal,

(ii) or the deal materialised and advances are converted into consideration for purchase.

In both the conditions it does not call for additions.

Thus addition of the same amount i.e. Rs.53,75,370/- is without any basis hence deleted.”

16. On perusal of the observations by Ld.CIT (A), it appears that Ld.CIT (A) has deleted the addition on presumption that either the advances that are returned by the farmers are due to failure of the deal or advances are converted into consideration for purchase. In our considered opinion both these possibilities are without any support of evidence filed by assessee either before Ld.AO or before Ld.CIT (A).

17. On perusal of additions made by Ld. AO in totality, which is partly dealt with in foregoing paragraphs while dealing with assessee’s appeal, as well as the current ground raised in revenue’s appeal, we are of considered opinion that no proper investigation has been conducted by either Ld.CIT (A) or by Ld.AO. Accordingly we are inclined to set aside this ground raised by the revenue to Ld. AO for proper investigation as per law.

18. Ld.AO shall call upon assessee as well as M/s Virat Exim to ascertain genuineness of amount received by assessee, in the light of documents/evidences advanced by both the parties. Ld.AO shall give opportunity to assessee, and confront with any submissions made/statements given by any representatives of M/s.Virat Exim, along with any documents/evidences submitted by M/s Virat Exim. Upon receiving submissions as called for to the satisfaction of Ld. AO, Ld. AO shall then conduct necessary enquiries/investigations to determine correct income and its nature in the hands of assessee.

19. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.

20. In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

(R.K.PANDA) (BEENA A PILLAI)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dt. 21.05.2018