Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds:
Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 2 ITA No. 918/M/2020 “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. A in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. A in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. Assessing Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside.
2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred 2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred 2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order passed by in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not served to the assessee. served to the assessee. b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of law and natural justice. against the principles of law and natural justice.
3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex- -parte order under section 250 of the Income Ta parte order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 is bad in law and needs to be set aside. is bad in law and needs to be set aside.
4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making additions of Rs. 21,51,264/ making additions of Rs. 21,51,264/- in the hands of the appellant o in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry creditors as at 31.03.2007 of Rs. 43,02,528/ creditors as at 31.03.2007 of Rs. 43,02,528/-. b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors is an ad unexplained sundry creditors is an ad-hoc amount without any hoc amount without any reasonable groun reasonable ground or evidence.
Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 3 ITA No. 918/M/2020 c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer be deleted. Assessing Officer be deleted. 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in in the hands of the appellant on making additions of Rs. 2,14,003/ making additions of Rs. 2,14,003/- in the hands of the appellant on account of un account of unexplained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses explained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses claimed of Rs.10,70,019/ claimed of Rs.10,70,019/-. b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained expenses is an ad unexplained expenses is an ad-hoc amount without any reasonable hoc amount without any reasonable ground or evidence. ground or evidence. c) The appellant prays that the c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned additions made by the learned Assessing Officer be deleted. Assessing Officer be deleted. 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside.”
At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer e could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer e could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non or before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the notices and receipt of the notices and therefore both the authorities have passed therefore both the authorities have passed ex-parte orders u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 of Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 4 ITA No. 918/M/2020 the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitte appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitte appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the above request of the Ld. counsel of the assessee. above request of the Ld. counsel of the assessee.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- We have heard rival submissions of the parties We have heard rival submissions of the parties dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee filed return of income on 31. filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of .2007 declaring total income of ₹2,77,940/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee and sent by the registered post at the nd sent by the registered post at the address provided by the address provided by the assessee. However, same assessee. However, same were returned un-served and therefore, served and therefore,
Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 5 ITA No. 918/M/2020 the Assessing Offic the Assessing Officer served the notices through er served the notices through affixture. Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment completed the assessment based on the material availa available on record as best judgment assessment as best judgment assessment, after making addition for 50% of the after making addition for 50% of the amount of the sundry creditors shown as on amount of the sundry creditors shown as on 31.03.2006 which was 31.03.2006 which was worked out to ₹20,00,645/ 20,00,645/- and 20% of the expenses which was and 20% of the expenses which was worked out to ₹2,14,003/ 2,14,003/-.
4.1 Aggrieved, the asse Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), ssee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, despite notifying on four occasions despite notifying on four occasions, no compliance was no compliance was made made made and and and therefore, therefore, therefore, the the the Ld. Ld. Ld. CIT(A) CIT(A) CIT(A) upheld upheld upheld the the the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer: additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer: additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer:
4. DECISION: I have considered the facts of the case, the DECISION: I have considered the facts of the cas DECISION: I have considered the facts of the cas assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 6 ITA No. 918/M/2020 Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted severa Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted severa Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted several opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form- 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided on the basis of facts available on record. on the basis of facts available on record. Date of issue of notice Date of issue of notice Date of hearing Remarks Remarks 26.02.2014 12.03.2014 No attendance No attendance 14.03.2014 21.03.2014 No attendance No attendance 16.10.2019 22.10.2019 No attendance No attendance 07.11.2019 14.11.2019 No attendance No attendance 4.1 In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461, it was held that held that “... appeal does not mean merely filing of ... appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively appeal but effectively pursuing it."
4.2 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India [Central case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009] Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009] clearly states, that every court judicial clearly states, that every court judicial body or authority, wh body or authority, which has a duty to decide a matter between two matter between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decisio quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nandramdas Court in case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below: Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below:
"Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic
Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses.
Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 7 ITA No. 918/M/2020 4.3 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to d inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for ismiss the case for default, has been upheld by default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as und case, the Apex Court has held as under :-
"That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to between two parties, inherently possesses the power to between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for that matter of a judicial or matter of a judicial or quasi judicial body. In the absence of the quasi judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the se being shown for the non appearance of the complainant. appearance of the complainant.
4.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the proposition that proposition that where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the Tribunal on facts absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution.
4.5 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. 19.12.2001) in the case of 19.12.2001) in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 8 ITA No. 918/M/2020 dismissed appeal for non missed appeal for non-attendance at hearings, inferring that hearings, inferring that assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. Thereafter in Thereafter in another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT h No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT h No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT had dismissed the appeal for non appeal for non-attendance at hearings.
4.6 In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that ny opportunities just because that quantum of amount quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is non negligence. When the assessee is non-cooperative, it can cooperative, it can naturally be safely ally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and lack of genuineness. falsity and lack of genuineness.
4.7 As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being despite being granted adequate opportunities. Accordingly, the granted adequate opportunities. Accordingly, the appeal is decided on the basis of l is decided on the basis of -facts available on record. facts available on record.
4.8 The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being duly considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of appeal no. 1 is is Dismissed.
4.9 The Ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 relate The Ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 relate to the addition of Rs. to the addition of Rs. 21,51,264/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors and on account of unexplained sundry creditors and on account of unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained expenses of Rs. unexplained expenses of Rs. 2,14,003/-. However, to substantiate the . However, to substantiate the above claims the appellant did not produce above claims the appellant did not produce any evidence during the any evidence during the course of Remand proceedings nor in th course of Remand proceedings nor in the appellate proceedings and proceedings and neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 9 ITA No. 918/M/2020 numerous opp numerous opportunities. In view of the same, I find no infirmity to I find no infirmity to interfere with the interfere with the disallowance made by the A.O. in his order. Hence disallowance made by the A.O. in his order. Hence the addition of the addition of ₹21,51,264/- on account of unexplained sundry on account of unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained expenses of creditors and unexplained expenses of Rs. 2,14,003/-is upheld. The is upheld. The Ground of appeal nos. 2 & 3 is Dismissed. Ground of appeal nos. 2 & 3 is Dismissed.” 4.2 Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from the assessee has upheld the additions/disall the assessee has upheld the additions/disallowances owances. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee and therefore, no representati and therefore, no representation could be made before the Ld. on could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of return of income filed. The Ld. counsel return of income filed. The Ld. counsel has given undertaking given undertaking before us that assessee woul would extend full co-operation for disposal of the operation for disposal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-
Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh 10 ITA No. 918/M/2020 dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for estore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for estore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly directed to tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly decide the issue in dispute decide the issue in dispute after taking into consideration, the after taking into consideration, the additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer shall Assessing Officer shall be afforded adequate opportuni afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.