Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the business of Zinc scrap processing and trading, made purchases of Rs. 10,51,03,435/- from four parties. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these purchases as bogus because the suppliers did not respond to notices, their GST registrations were cancelled, and they were non-filers. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the genuineness of purchases, the AO also acted in haste by not conducting necessary verifications. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to present fresh documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the purchases made by the assessee from the four parties are genuine, and if not, whether the entire amount should be disallowed.
Sections Cited
133(6), 143(3), 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Narahari Biswal, Assessee Advocate. Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri B. Bala Krishna, Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 26.062025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.02.2025, 2 Basanth Lal Sah. which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us :
“1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order and dismissing the appeal filed against the assessment order. 2. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in law and on facts by not adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant that no reasonable time was allowed to the appellant to reply to the show cause notice dated 09.12.2022. The appellant was allowed only one working day to reply to the show cause notice
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 10,51,03,435/- made by the AO on the alleged ground that the suppliers of materials were not proved to be genuine even though the appellant had submitted sufficient documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the suppliers.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that the appellant failed to produce single evidence to show that they are the genuine suppliers and all the purchases made by him are genuine although the appellant has submitted corroborative evidences substantiating the genuineness of the creditors and purchases.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating arbitrarily that the GSTIN numbers of the parties were suo moto cancelled by the GST Department based on the inputs received by the them of their bogus nature of activities without providing the appellant any documentary evidence.
6. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO as bogus purchases even though the sales were not disputed, no discrepancies were found in stock and also, audited books of accounts were not rejected, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that GP margin in appellant's line of business cannot be as high as 38 percent on account of disallowance of purchases.
3 Basanth Lal Sah.
The Ld. CIT(A), without independent verification into the facts of the case, erred in aligning with the contentions/observations of the AO which were in turn based on inferences driven by suspicion, assumptions, conjectures and surmises.
9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions alleging bogus purchases solely on the grounds that the creditors did not respond to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and that the creditors did not file their income tax returns. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions ignoring the judgements of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Tribunals. 11. The Appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any ground of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”
Succinctly stated, the assessee, who is an individual running two proprietary concerns, viz. M/s. Bhavani Oxide and M/s. Bhavani Industries, had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2021– 22 on 12.03.2022, declaring an income of Rs.44,59,760/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for verifying the substantial purchases made from the suppliers, who were either non-filers or had filed non-business returns of income i.e. ITRs 1 and 2, or had reflected a substantially lower turnover in their Income-tax returns.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee in the year had made huge purchases from various agencies. On a perusal of the details, the A.O.
4 Basanth Lal Sah. observed that the assessee had, inter alia, made purchases of Rs. 10,51,03,435/- from the following four parties :
The A.O. in order to verify the veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to the aforementioned parties. However, neither of the subject parties responded to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The A.O. further observed that the aforementioned persons had not filed their return of income for the year under consideration.
The A.O., based on the aforesaid facts, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the subject purchases claimed to have been made from the aforementioned parties may not be 5 Basanth Lal Sah. treated as bogus. In reply, the assessee, in order to substantiate the authenticity of the subject purchase transactions, filed the copies of invoices and e-way bills for the purchases made from the aforementioned parties. Apart from that, the assessee submitted that the purchases from the party stated at Serial No. 3, viz., Sri Suresh, Proprietor of M/s. SAM Traders, amounted to Rs. 19,12,500/- and was not claimed as purchases in his books of accounts as the material received from him was rejected due to quality issues.
However, we find that the A.O. did not find favour with the assessee's claim of having made genuine purchases of Rs. 10.51 crore (approx.) from the aforementioned parties for multiple reasons, viz., (i). that the GST registration numbers of the aforementioned parties were inactive/cancelled; (ii). that the aforementioned parties had not responded to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act; (iii). that in the case of Sri Suresh (party at Sr.No.3), the Verification Unit had reported that there was no such person available at the address provided; and (iv). that the generation of e-way bill cannot be taken as a proof that the assessee society had made genuine purchases from the said 6 Basanth Lal Sah. parties. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the A.O. are culled out as under :
7 Basanth Lal Sah.
Thereafter, the A.O., after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) Taxman 198 (SC), held the entire amount of purchases of Rs. 10.51 crore (supra) as bogus and made addition of the same to the returned income of the assessee.
8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, in the course of the appellate proceedings, tried to impress upon the CIT(A) that he had made genuine purchases from the subject parties. The assessee, vide his letter dated 26.03.2025, requested the CIT(A) for admission of certain documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, viz., (i). the copy of invoices and e-way bills; (ii). copy of bank account statements; and (iii). GST return filing status of the suppliers as downloaded from the GST portal. Also, it was the 8 Basanth Lal Sah. claim of the assessee that he had remained unaware about the fact that the A.O. had issued notices under Section 133(6) to the aforementioned suppliers, which, however, had remained uncomplied with. Apart from that, it was the assessee's claim that he had not been given sufficient or reasonable time to furnish the reply or response to the show-cause notice issued by the A.O. Also, the assessee, rebutted the observation of the A.O., and submitted that he had failed to verify the effective date of cancellation of GST of the supplier parties, which were active and not cancelled when the e-way bills for the transactions in question were generated. Elaborating further on his contentions, the assessee submitted that, as per verifications carried out by him, it was gathered that the aforementioned parties were regularly filing their GST returns, which was evident from the GST portal, and the said fact was not looked into by the A.O. based on any independent inquiry/ verification. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the A.O.'s assessment that GST of the supplier parties were cancelled and that the e-way bills generated were illegal was not backed by any independent verification carried out by him. The assessee further submitted that he had to 9 Basanth Lal Sah.
substantiate the genuineness of the purchase transactions in the course of the assessment proceedings, produced the purchase register, which clearly identified the suppliers, along with their names, PAN, GST numbers, and had also filed the copies of invoices and e-way bills. Apart from that, the assessee had submitted that though the A.O. had held the subject purchases to be bogus, but at the same time, he had accepted the sales corresponding to such purchases. Elaborating further on his contention, the assessee submitted that the A.O. had neither pointed out any discrepancy in the sales carried out by the assessee, nor in the stock reflected in the books of accounts. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that, even if the subject purchases were to be assumed as bogus, then the addition in the hands of the assessee was only to be restricted to the extent of the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and there could be no justification for making an addition of the entire amount of the purchases in question. Further, the assessee submitted that, in case the entire amount of purchases were to be held as bogus, with a consequential addition in the hands of the assessee, then the same would result in a gross profit rate of 38%, as against 10 Basanth Lal Sah.
8.49% that was disclosed by the assessee during the subject year. As such, the assessee had submitted before the A.O. that, even if the purchases were to be assumed as bogus, the addition in his case could not have exceeded 2% of the value of such alleged bogus purchases.
The CIT(A), after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee, and also the application filed by him seeking admission of certain documentary evidence as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the copies of the invoices and e-way bills had already been filed by the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the A.O. Apropos the bank statements that were filed by the assessee, it was observed by him that the A.O. had not made any adverse comments with respect to the entries in the books of accounts of the assessee. Also, it was observed by him that the remaining evidence that was submitted by the assessee was only of contributory nature and could be interpreted based on the comments and observations of the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dispensed with the need to call for fresh comments of the A.O. on 11 Basanth Lal Sah. the additional evidence that was furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings.
The CIT(A), on perusal of the record, observed that the assessee had claimed to have made purchases from the aforementioned four parties. The CIT(A) observed that a perusal of the registration/cancellation of GST numbers of the aforementioned parties revealed that all of them were registered for a small period ranging from 13.08.2018 to 27.04.2021. The CIT(A) observed that the GST numbers of all the proprietors were suo motu cancelled by the GST department based on the inputs received by them of the bogus nature of the activities of the aforementioned parties. Further, it was observed by him that neither of the subject parties had authenticated their Aadhaar numbers nor had got e-KYC verification done. Also, the CIT(A) observed that the subject parties had filed their GST returns for a period of 6–8 months in F.Y. 2021–22 relevant to the A.Y. 2021– 22, and their GST numbers were also cancelled in the same financial year except for in the case of M/s.SAM Traders, whose GST number was cancelled in F.Y. 2021–22. Further, the CIT(A) observed that neither of the aforementioned four parties had filed 12 Basanth Lal Sah. their income tax returns and were non-filers. Also, it was observed by him that the assessee, while discharging the onus that was cast upon him regarding proving the authenticity of the purchase transactions, had failed to place on record the confirmations of the aforementioned suppliers. The CIT(A) further took cognizance of the fact that neither of the aforementioned parties had responded to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, wherein they were called upon to place on record their confirmations of having supplied goods to the assessee. Further, the fact that the assessee had failed to place on record the confirmations of the subject parties and their ledger accounts, income tax returns, and their acknowledgements and bank statements to prove the transactions as genuine had also weighed in the mind of the CIT(A) for concluding that no genuine purchases were made by the assessee from the aforementioned parties. Accordingly, the CIT(A), drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central-1 VS. NRI Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 Taxman 48 (SC), observed that the assessee had failed to discharge his primary onus that was cast upon him to prove the genuineness of 13 Basanth Lal Sah.
the transactions. The CIT(A) also pressed into service the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and CIT Vs. P. Mohan Kala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC), wherein it was observed that in absence of any satisfactory explanation with respect to the sums found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, the said sums so credited may be charged, as income of the assessee of the previous year. Apart from that, the CIT(A) did not find any substance in the claim of the assessee that as the subject transactions were carried out through banking channels, therefore the same substantiated the authenticity of the purchase transactions.
As regards the claim of the assessee that as his gross profit (G.P.) margin for the year under consideration far exceeded that of his trade line, the CIT(A) observed that as the assessee had failed to provide any comparative G.P. data pertaining to his line of business and had only placed on record his data for different assessment years, therefore, there was no merit in his aforesaid contention. Accordingly, the CIT(A), based on his aforesaid deliberations, upheld the addition of Rs. 10.51 crore (supra) made 14 Basanth Lal Sah. by the A.O. by treating the subject purchases as bogus. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under :
15 Basanth Lal Sah. …. …… ……. 16 Basanth Lal Sah. 17 Basanth Lal Sah.
The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.
18 Basanth Lal Sah.
Shri Narahari Biswal, Advocate, the learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that both the authorities below had grossly erred in law and on facts in treating the duly substantiated purchases made by the assessee from the aforementioned four parties as bogus and thereby making a consequential addition of the entire amount of the subject purchases in his hands. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, who is engaged in the business of Zinc scrap processing and trading in his two proprietary concerns, viz., M/s. Bhavani Oxide and M/s. Bhavani Industries, had, during the subject year, in the normal course of business, made purchases of zinc scrap from the aforementioned four parties. The Ld. Ld. AR submitted that the A.O. had called upon the assessee, vide notice dated 09.12.2022, to establish the identity of the aforementioned four parties and the genuineness of the purchase transactions by 13.12.2022, which, due to paucity of time, could not be done specifically for the reason that 10.12.2022 and 11.12.2022 were Saturday and Sunday. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had only one working day i.e 12.12.2022 for filing the reply. The Ld. 19 Basanth Lal Sah.
AR submitted that the assessee while discharging the onus that was cast upon him to prove the identity of the subject purchase transactions, had filed before the A.O. the copy of the invoices and e-way bills, which clearly proved the purchase of the goods made by the assessee from the aforementioned parties. Also, the Ld. AR submitted the fact that the subject purchases made by the assessee from the aforementioned suppliers were made through RTGS supported the authenticity of the subject purchase transactions. The Ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order reveals that the A.O. had held the subject purchases of Rs. 10.51 crore (supra) as bogus primarily for four reasons viz. (i). the parties had not filed their returns of income; (ii). the supplier parties did not respond to notice under Section 133(6) of the Act; (iii). that in the case of third parties, their GST numbers were found to be inactive; and (iv). generation of e-way bills when GST Portal was inactive was considered illegal. The Ld. AR has submitted that merely for the reason that the supplier parties had not filed their returns of income for the subject year could not have formed a basis for drawing adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee 20 Basanth Lal Sah. from them. Apart from that, the Ld. AR has submitted that the non-compliance of the aforementioned parties to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act could not have been pressed into service by the authorities below for doubting the authenticity of the purchase transactions. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that now when the assessee, to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him for proving the identity of the subject purchases, had placed on record the copy of the invoices, copies of e-way bills evidencing the movement of goods, and also brought on record the fact that the payment of the purchase consideration was made to the said parties through banking channels, therefore, the A.O. could not have, based on surmises and conjectures, held the said purchase transactions as sham. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee, for the subject year, had disclosed a G.P. rate of 8.49%, which was better than that prevailing in the trade line (8%), therefore, if the purchases of Rs. 10.51 crore (supra), as held by the A.O. are treated to be bogus, then the same would result in an unimaginable profit rate of 38% which is unheard of in the trade line. Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that if it is 21 Basanth Lal Sah. presumed that the subject purchases were bogus, then the A.O., in the backdrop of the fact that no adverse inference was drawn regarding the corresponding sales and the stock available with the assessee as per his audited books of accounts, was only required to saddle the assessee with the profit element on the value of the subject purchases. The Ld. AR, to support his aforesaid contention, had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam and Co. The Ld. AR, based on his aforesaid contentions, submitted that as the A.O./CIT(A) made/sustained an exorbitant addition of Rs. 10.51 crore (supra) without any basis, therefore, the same, in all fairness, be vacated.
Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. CIT-DR”) relied upon the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as the assessee had failed to substantiate the identity of the parties from whom the subject purchases were made, therefore, the A.O. on failure of the assessee to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, had 22 Basanth Lal Sah. rightly held the same to be bogus and made the consequential addition in his hands.
We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. authorized representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the assessee, to support his claim of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned parties, had filed before the A.O. certain documentary evidence, viz. (i) copy of invoices and e-way bills; (ii). copy of bank account statement and (iii) GST return filing status of creditors as downloaded from GSTIN Portal, and also submitted that payment of the purchase consideration for the subject purchases had been made through banking channels. Also, we find that the assessee, in the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), had placed on record the GST return filing status of the aforementioned parties as downloaded from the GST portal. On a careful perusal of the details filed by the assessee, including GST invoices and E-Way Bills for the purchases made from the subject parties, we find that the same, as culled out by the CIT(A) in the body of his order, reads as under:
23 Basanth Lal Sah.
Annexure - 1 Cancellation Name of the GSTIN Registration Invoice/E-way Remarks S. Date Supplier Date Bill dates No. 1 Shri Rajesh 3388XPV7290JIZM 29.01.2019 30.11.2020 10.07.2020, a. Invoice and e- Kumar 13.07.2020 way bills were Vishnoi and generated during (Vikas 29.09.2020 the period which Traders) GST IN was 2 Shri Papu 33DXCP24135RIZM 22.07.2020 18.02.2021 27.07.2020 (2), active and; Ram 28.07.2020 (3) (Vikas 29.07.2020 (3) b. The copies of the same were Traders) 31.07.2020 (3) submitted during 27.12.2020, 30.12.2020 (2) the course of assessment proceedings 3. Shri Papu 33DXCP24135RIZM 22.07.2020 18.02.2021 07.10.2020, a. Invoice and e- Ram 13.10.2020 & way bills were (Vikas 12.11.2020 – generated during Traders) submitting as the period which additional GST IN was evidence active and; 4. Shri Suresh 33FJZIS3978E229 13.08.2018 27.04.2021 01.05.2020 b. The copies of (SAM Traders) (not submitted) the same are being submitted herewith as additional evidence 5. Shri Sukh 24EZKPR5527JIZQ 18.01.2020 19.01.2020 17.06.2020 a. Invoice and e- Ram (10), way bills were (Mahavir 10.09.2020 & generated during Enterprise) 26.10.2020 (2) the period which 29.10.2020- GST IN was submitting as active and; additional evidence b. It appears that the GSTIN was retrospectively cancelled on a future date, because it is not possible to generate e-way bills without having an active GSTIN.
Although at first blush, we held a firm conviction that as the assessee had not discharged the primary onus that was cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the 24 Basanth Lal Sah. aforementioned parties, but a perusal of the record reveals that he had filed before the A.O. copies of invoices along with e-Way Bills, and had also emphasized on the fact that the payment towards the purchase consideration was made to the said parties through banking channels, therefore, prima facie, there was no reason to have doubted the authenticity of the purchase transactions. However, on a perusal of the peculiar facts that had surfaced in the present case before us, viz. GST IN numbers of all the concerned parties remained active only for a short period ranging from 13.08.2018 to 27.04.2021, which thereafter were suo motu cancelled by the GST Department raises serious doubts about the identity and existence of the said parties and the genuineness of the purchase transactions.
Although we are unable to fully concur with the A.O.’s finding that the assessee had generated e-way Bills based on bogus GST IN numbers, but at the same time find substance in his claim that the mere generation of e-way Bills cannot by itself substantiate the authenticity of the subject purchase transactions. We, say, so, specifically for the reason that in the recent past, certain transactions have been reported wherein certain vehicles had 25 Basanth Lal Sah. passed through check-posts without actually carrying any goods, despite having valid e-way Bills. Our aforesaid doubts are all the more supported by the fact that all the aforementioned concerns had existed for a short period and, thereafter, ceased to exist. Also, the fact that none of the said parties had either filed their returns of income or completed e-KYC authentication as per GST records further raises doubt as regards the genuineness of the said parties and their business activities. We also cannot remain oblivion of the fact that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchase transactions by doing even the bare minimum i.e. furnishing the confirmations from the said parties, copies of their income-tax returns, etc. Although we are of the view that the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him to establish the genuineness of the purchases made from the said parties based on irrefutable evidence, but at the same time, we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that he had placed certain documents on record during the assessment proceedings which more or less substantiates his claim of having made the subject purchases from the said parties, viz. (i) copy of invoices and e-way bills; (ii). copy of bank account 26 Basanth Lal Sah. statement and (iii) GST return filing status of subject suppliers from GSTIN Portal. Also, the fact that the assessee company had made payments to the aforementioned parties through banking channels have neither been refuted by the authorities below nor any adverse inference on the said aspect had surfaced. Apart from that, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that merely for the reason that the aforementioned parties had failed to comply with the notices which were issued to them u/s 133(6) of the Act cannot on a stand-alone basis justify dubbing the purchase transactions as bogus. Also, the fact that the aforementioned parties had either not filed their returns of income for the subject year or had defaulted in one way or the other in complying with statutory obligations before the GST department cannot, by itself, be a solitary basis to dislodge the claim of the assessee of having made genuine purchases from the said parties.
At the same time, we are of the view that though the assessee had placed on record the copies of invoices along with E- Way Bills, but in totality of the facts when serious doubts regarding the genuineness of purchases were raised by the A.O., then a very heavy onus was cast upon the assessee to 27 Basanth Lal Sah. substantiate his claim based on irrefutable documentary evidence. In our view, the assessee ought to have placed on record the copies of the confirmations of the aforementioned parties and also substantiated his claim of having received the goods at his office/work premises based on supporting documentary evidence. Apart from that, the A.O. ought to have undertaken further verification by obtaining details from the GST department pertaining to the aforementioned parties, rather than summarily treating the purchase transactions as bogus and making consequential additions in the hands of the assessee. Considering the fact that instances of movement of vehicles through tolls with valid E-Way Bills but without actually carrying any goods could also have been verified by the A.O. by calling for the weighbridge receipts of the concerned vehicles. We also find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that in case the entire amount of purchases of Rs.10.51 crores (supra) are held as bogus, then the same would result to the G.P. rate of 38%, which is unheard of in the trade line of the assessee, who has consistently disclosed a G.P. rate of 8% over the years.
28 Basanth Lal Sah.
Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the aforementioned parties, to the satisfaction of the A.O., based on supporting documentary evidence, and the A.O. also had hushed through the assessment without carrying out necessary verification from the GST department calling for weighbridge receipts, or perusing the purchase register etc, therefore, the matter, in all fairness, requires to be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same. Needless to say, the A.O. shall, in the course of set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his claim based on fresh documentary evidence, if any.
We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
29 Basanth Lal Sah.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.