ACIT, NEW DELHI V. M/S. SPAN INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 801/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, New Delhi as the appellant and M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The dispute arose from the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14, where the Revenue challenged the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi, which had deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The main legal contention was whether the assessment for the year in question should have been conducted under section 143(3) or section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal found that the procedural requirements for invoking section 153C were not met, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474595 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC Ltd. vs CIT, Akansha Gupta vs ACIT, Jasjit Singh vs ACIT, DSL Properties P. Ltd. vs ACIT, SSP Aviation Ltd. vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYA CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: M.P. RASTOGI; DEEPAK MALIK; WAY OF OTHER GROUNDS; WAY
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 132; 153A; 22; 13; 153C; 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.801/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, New Delhi. Vs. M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd., 220, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi PAN-AAACS0079A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.17/Del/2022 Arising out of ITA No.801/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd., 220, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi PAN-AAACS0079A Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Shri Deepak Malik, Adv. Department by Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/03/2025 2 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-24, Delhi dated 25/11/2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has challenged the appellate order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,71,29,722/ on account of unaccounted interest. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition merely on the basis that the assessee's name was not appearing on the document, when the document clearly show that three groups were acting as a consortium and the assessee is part of one of the groups. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition merely on the basis that the assessee's name was not appearing on the document, when the document reflected the name of the recipient of ICD and the assessee is admittedly one of the lenders to that recipient and receiving interest from them. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 59,89,921/. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has also filed C.O. wherein the assessee has taken following cross objection: “That approval, as granted by Addl./Joint Commr. of Income Tax u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, approving the order of the Assessing officer, in a mechanical manner and without application of mind and consequently the 3 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. order as passed by the Assessing order in furtherance a such alleged mechanical approval is invalid and bad in law.” Thereafter, vide letter dated 25/09/2024, the assessee has taken additional cross objections by filing revised Form 36A wherein the following Cross Objections is taken as additional cross objection which reads as under: “The assessment ought to have been completed in the manner prescribed u/s 153C of the Act instead of 143(3) of the Act, as the alleged satisfaction has been recorded by the AO on 10.10.2014 i.e. deemed date of search.” 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submit that the additional cross objection No.1 taken is purely on legal issue and goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT reported in [1998] 229 ITR 385 (SC), it is requested that the additional cross objections filed be admitted and adjudicated upon. 5. Per contra, Ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional cross objection filed by the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the additional cross objection, we find that the assessee has taken a legal ground with respect to the completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) instead of 153C which is purely a legal ground, thus in the interest of justice and also by respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra), the additional cross objections taken by the assessee is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. 7. Since, the additional cross objection of the assessee is a legal ground, therefore, the same is taken at first before coming to the Revenue appeal wherein additions deleted by Ld. CIT(A) on merits are challenged. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee, the assessment proceedings were initiated vide notice issued u/s 143(2) in terms of the search action carried out in the case of assessee on 16/01/2013. During the course of pendency of assessment proceedings, it was came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer that certain documents found during the course of search and seizure operation carried in the case of K.S. Dhingra, G.S. Dhingra & Ors. on 16/09/2011 containing certain loan transactions by assessee which were not disclosed. Accordingly, upon receipt of the material supplied by the AO of persons searched, a satisfaction note was recorded on 10/10/2014 in the case of the assessee for initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Asst. Year 2007-08 to 2012-13. Further, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 pending before him u/s 143(3) vide order dt. 27/03/2015 wherein the documents so found in possession of M/s K.S. Dhingra, G.S. Dhingra & Ors. group were considered and additions were made on the basis of entries found noted in those documents. The Ld. AR submitted that since in the case of assessee, the satisfaction was recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C on 10/10/2014, the assessment years covered under the block 5 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. period of six years would be from Assessment Years 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2014-15 and the search year would be the Asst. Year 2015-16 during which the document found from the possession of third party were received by the AO of the assessee and the AO of the assessee has recorded his satisfaction, and, accordingly, the order passed u/s 143(3) for Asst. Year 2013-14 instead of u/s 153C deserves to be stuck down. He further submitted that after recording the satisfaction on 10/10/2014, for issue of notice u/s 153C, all the pending proceedings stood abated which inter-alia includes the pending proceeding for Asst. Year 2013-14. Therefore, the order passed u/s 143(3) for Asst. Year 2013-14 on such pending proceedings is void ab-initio and he prayed accordingly. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submit that the assessment was rightly completed u/s 143(3) of the Act as there was a search carried in the case of assessee on 16/01/2013, as a result of which the assessment proceedings were going on u/s 143(3) for Asst. Year 2013-14 which incidentally be the year of search therefore, the action of AO deserves to the uphold. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the satisfaction as recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of assessee as reproduced in the appellate order for Asst. Year 2008-09 dated 31/10/2016 filed before us, is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience. 6 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. “4.1.8 It is necessary to now examine the \"Satisfaction Note\", as received from the A.O., on the touchstone of the ratio of the judgments extracted above. The same is reproduced below: M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd. Satisfaction Note Α.Υ. 2007-08 to 2012-13 Dated: 10/10/2014 Satisfaction Note for issue of Notice u/s 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACS0079A), for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of 1.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on Vatika Group, Span India Group and others on 16.01.2013 and during the course of search and seizure action certain documents/papers were found and seized. The following documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of 1.T. Act, 1961 are found to be belonging to M/s Span India Pvt. Lid over which the jurisdiction lies with undersigned: Party/Annex/ Page No. Description of Annexure ………… ……………….. ………… ……………….. I have examined the above mentioned documents/paper and satisfied that the provisions of section 153C of 1.T. Act, 1961 are applicable in the case of M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd. As the undersigned is having the jurisdiction over the case of M/s Span India Pvt. Ltd., notices u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of IT. Act, 1961 are issued for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 (Dr. Hitisha Ruhela) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, New Delhi 11. From the said satisfaction note, it is seen that the AO has recorded the satisfaction on 10/10/2014. Further, the above satisfaction note refer the search carried out in the case of the Vatika Group, Span India Group and other on 16/01/2023 and based on 7 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. the documents found during the search on these group, AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction that these papers are belonging to assessee and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated for Asst. Year 2007-08 to 2012-13. Here it is relevant to state that for the impugned year, AO has made two additions, first of Rs.4,71,29,722/- towards undisclosed /unaccounted interest received/receivable and other of Rs.59,89,921/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act. Further perusal of assessment order, we found that addition of Rs.4,71,29,722/- is made solely on the basis of documents/loose papers found and seized during the search and seizure operation carried out in the case of “S.K. Dhingra, G.S. Dhingra & Ors. on 16/09/2011 and no paper whatsoever was referred or relied upon with respect to search carried out in the case of Vatika group, Span India Group and Others on 16/01/2013 based on which satisfaction was recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C in the case of assessee vide satisfaction note dt. 10/10/2014 as reproduced above. Thus when no satisfaction was recorded with respect to the papers found and seized during the course of search of some other person on 16/09/2011 without initiating the proceedings U/s 153C in the case of the assessee, how such loose paper and documents could be considered in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, the additions without initiating proceedings u/s 153C in the case of the assessee on the basis of documents seized during the search on 16/09/2011 in case of dhingra Group is without any foundation and we can say that no satisfaction was recorded for the documents found and seized 8 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. during the course of search in the case of “Dhingra Group” on 16/01/2011 as belonging to assessee nor proceedings u/s 153C were initiated thus additions made on the basis of such documents in the hands of assessee are legally not permissible. 12. If the AO wants to use the papers found from the possession of “Dhingra Group”, the due procedure as per 153C of the Act should be followed. According to which, the AO of the Dhingra Group i.e., the AO of person searched must have recorded satisfaction that certain papers found during the course of search are having entries belonging to assessee and handed over such documents to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Thereafter, upon receiving such documents, the AO of the assessee must recorded his satisfaction that such paper belonged to assessee and then proceedings u/s 153C could be initiated in the case of assessee. Law does not permit the AO to use the documents found from the possession of the other person to be used in the case of assessee without there being a satisfaction note as provided in section 153C of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the additions made in the assessment order dt. 27/03/2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are illegal hence deleted. 13. Even otherwise, based on the satisfaction note dt. 10/10/2014, the present assessment order is liable to be quashed. As per proviso to section 153C, the date of search has to be substituted with the date on which the books of accounts or other documents were received by the Assessing Officer of the assessee i.e. on 10/10/2014 9 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. when they were handed over by the Assessing Officer of person searched to the AO of the assesse. Therefore, date of search would be substituted to 10/10/2014 which falls under Assessment Year 2015- 16 and, accordingly, six immediate preceeding assessment years fallen under the block period and for which, assessment proceedings u/s 153C could be initiated were AY 2009-10 to AY 2014-15 which inter alia includes the impugned Assessment Year 2013-14 also. However, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has instead of issue of notice u/s 153C for AY 2013-14, has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) wherein as observed above, the additions have been made on the basis of the documents seized from the possession of the persons search in whose case no satisfaction is recorded that those papers belong to the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Akansha Gupta (supra) has held the order passed u/s 143(3) as bad in law. The relevant observations of the tribunal are as under: “8.1. On perusal of the satisfaction note, it is seen that the same was recorded on 30.06.2022 by the AO after giving a finding that the clone data of Pravin Kumar Jain‟s Mobile marked as Annexure-5 belongs to the assessee, which has bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years referred to in sub section-1 of section 153A of the Act and it was a fit case for initiating proceedings in the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 u/s 153C of the Act and for AY 2021-22 u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, he issued a notice u/s 143(2) on 30.06.2022 for AY 2021-22. On similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh(supra) referred to the decision in the case of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of V.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.5460 to 5465/Del/2012, wherein, it was held that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this 10 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. date. The findings of the Tribunal in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) in para-15 to para -20 is reproduced as under:- \"15. We find that an identical issue has been decided by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties P. Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee accepting the similar contention of the assessee. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.K. Fiscal (supra) holding that the date of receiving of the seized documents would become the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date. For a ready reference para no. 19, 21, 22 & 23 of the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (supra) are being reproduced hereunder: 19. \"We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Proviso to section 153C reads as under: \"Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search u/s132 or making of requisition u/s 132A in the second proviso to [sub- section (1) off section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person.\" 20. The above proviso refers to second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A. That section 153(1) and its first and second provisions read as under: - \"153A. [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section139, section 147, section 148, section149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of account, section 132A afterthe 31st day of May, 2003, the AO shall - (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s 139; 11 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. (b) Assess or reassess the total income or six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made : Provided that the AO shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling with insuch six assessment years: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this [sub- section)pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\" 21. From the above, it is evident that as per clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 153A and second proviso, the AO can be issue notice for assessment or reassessment of total six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search is conducted. As per proviso to section 153C, the date of search is to be substituted by the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Ld. DR has stated that since the AO of the person searched and the AO of such other person was the same, no handing over or taking over of the document was required. That section 153C(1) and its proviso have to be read together in a harmonious manner. While interpreting section 153C, we have already held that for initiating valid jurisdiction u/s 153C, even if the AO of the person searched and the AO of such other person is the same, he has to first record the satisfaction in the file of the person searched and thereafter, such note along with the seized document/books of account is to be placed in the file of such other person. The date on which this exercise is done would be considered as the date of receiving the books of account or document by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. Though while examining the facts of the assessee's case we have arrived at the conclusion that no such exercise has been properly carried out and, therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s 153C itself is invalid, however, since both the parties have argued the issue of period of limitation also, we deem it proper to adjudicate the same. Since in this case satisfaction is recorded on 21st June, 2010 and notice u/s 153C is also issued on the same date, then only conclusion that can be drawn is that the AO of such 12 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. other person has taken over the possession of seized document on 21st June, 2010.Accordingly, as per section 153(1), the AO can issue the notice for the previous year in which search is conducted (for the purpose of Section 153C the document is handed over) and six assessment years preceding such assessment year. Now, in this case, the previous year in which the document is handed over is 1st April,2010 to 31st March, 2011. The assessment year would be A.Y.2011-12. Six preceding previous years and relevant assessment year would be as under: Previous Year Assessment Year 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 2010-11 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 2009-10 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 2008-09 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 2007-08 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 2006-07 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 2005-06 22. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 153C for A.Y.2004-05 which is clearly barred by limitation. Therefore, issue of notice u/s 153C issued by the Revenue cannot be sustained on both the above counts, i.e., it is legally not valid as conditions laid down u/s 153C has not been fulfilled and it is barred by limitation. In view of the above, we quash the notice issued u/s153C and consequently, the assessment completed in pursuance to such notice, is also quashed. 23. Since we have quashed the assessment order itself, the additions challenged by the assessee by way of other grounds of appeal do not survive, and, therefore, do not require any adjudication.\" 16. We thus, find that the issue raised in the additional ground has-been answered in favour of the assessee, by the Coordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (supra). 17. So far as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) relied upon by the Id. CIT(DR) is concerned, we find that it is not helpful to the revenue as in that case also in para no. 14 of the judgment it has been held as under: 14. \"Now there can be a situation when during the 13 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. search conducted on one person u/s 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the AO has to first be satisfied u/s 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e., any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or document belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the AO having jurisdiction over theother person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of section 153A.Now a question may arise as to the applicability of the second proviso to section 153A in the case of the other person, in order to examine the question of pending proceedings which have to abate. In the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year within the period of the six assessment years shall abate, is the date of initiation of the search u/s132 or the requisition u/s 132A. For instance, in the present case, with reference to the Puri Group of Companies, such date will be 5.1.2009. However, in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date.\" 18. In view of the above finding, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the present case is not valid. Respectfully following the above cited decisions on an identical issue, the additional ground no. 4 in the present case is decided in favour of the assessee and in the result the assessment order is quashed as void. 19. Since in the above finding on the issue raised in additional ground no. 4 we have quashed the assessment order itself, the additions questioned by the assessee by way 14 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. of other grounds of the appeal do not survive and, therefore, do not require any adjudication. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the date of recording of the satisfaction will be the deemed date for the possession of the seized documents, which is 30.06.2022 in the present case and the date of search and six years period would be reckoned from this date i.e.30.06.2022. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the assessment year relevant for previous year in which search was conducted in the case of the assessee will be AY 2023-24 and the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was conducted for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act will be AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the cited case, it is held that in the present case, the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(2) of the Act as done by the AO in this case. No other contrary facts or decision was brought on record by the Ld. DR Therefore, it is held that the assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 30.06.2022 is bad in law and hence the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 30.06.2022 and the consequent assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are hereby quashed. The additional grounds filed by the assessee are allowed.” 14. Since in the case of the assessee also the satisfaction note for initiating the proceedings u/s 153C was recorded by the AO of the assessee on 10/10/2024 thus Assessment Year relevant for previous year in which search was conducted in the case of the assessee should be the Assessment Year 2015-16 and the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was conducted for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act will be AY 2009-10 to 2014-15 and the impugned year i.e. AY 2013-14 is fallen in such block period thus the assessment should have been completed u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3) as has been done in the present case. In view of this discussion and by respectfully following the judgement 15 ITA No.801/Del/2017 C. O. No.17/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd. of referred and also in the case of Jasjit Singh Vs. ACIT reported in 2014 (11) TMI 1012 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional high court as reported in 2015(8) TMI 982, on similar facts, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt. 27/03/2015 is hereby quashed. 15. As we have allowed the assessee’s legal ground regarding the legality of the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, thus all the other grounds of appeal become academic and thus not adjudicated. 16. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 07/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07/03/2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "