Shri Jagmeet Singh Barar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 143/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1850/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 31(2), NEW DELHI VS. JAGMEET SINGH BARAR, RT-191, ROYALTON TOWER, DLF PHASE-IV, GURGAON (PAN: AFIPB8692L) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. NO.143/DEL/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1850/DEL/2016) A.Y. : 2009-10 JAGMEET SINGH BARAR, C/O RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI 49 VS. ITO, WARD 31(2), NEW DELHI (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, SH. SOMIL AGARWAL & SH. TARUN KUMAR, ADV. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL REA D AS UNDER:- 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY ADMITTING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER RULE 46A DESPITE THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RULE 46A ARE APPLICABLE TO T HE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION S OF RS. 51,80,000/- MADE BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND BELONGING TO MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN T HE FORM OF A WILL OR GIFT DEED ETC. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJEC TION READ AS UNDER:- 3 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,20,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 58,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,20,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 58,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN OBSERVING THAT CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LANDS REQUIRES INVESTIGATION AND THEREAFTER TAXED AS PER LAW AND FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT WEALTH TAX ALSO APPEARS LEVIABLE ON TH ESE LANDS AND FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO PASS ON THE INFORMATION TO THE AO OF SMT. JAGDISH KAUR, MORE SO WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH POWERS CONFERRED UNDER THE LA W. 4 4. THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 53,288/- ON 27.3.2010 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). LATER ON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO TH E SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED. AS PER AIR INFORMATI ON, THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 63,45,000/- IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE S AME AND IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THE DEPOSIT OF THIS AMOUNT AS UNDER:- RS. 25,50,807/- WITHDRAWAL OF CASH RS. 34,00,000/- SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (ANCESTRAL ) RS. 5,75,000/- AGRICULTURAL INCOME 4.1 AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS EXPLANATION ESPECIALLY FOR TH E SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. SECONDLY, THE AO ALSO FOUND FR OM THE BANK 5 STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MATURE PROCEEDS OF FDRS CREATED TO HIS ACCOUNT INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ALSO WHIC H HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DECLARED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOM E IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,92,799/-. FINALLY THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 58 LACS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT AND RS. 2,93,691/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 28.12.2011. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2 011 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), REVENU E HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIO N BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE AIR INFOR MATION, THE AO CALLED THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS. 63,45,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT RS. 2 5,50,807/- 6 IS A WITHDRAWAL OF CASH; RS. 34 LACS IS A SALE FROM ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RS. 5.75 LACS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. LD. DR FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS EXPLANATION BEFORE AO AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 58 LACS U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND RS. 2,93,691/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHE R STATED THAT IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, DESPITE THE FACT THA T NONE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID IN RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE S, 1962 ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY. FOR VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE HAS WRONGLY ADMITTED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPU TE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO T HE AO TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH, A S PER LAW, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CASE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE LIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT AO HA S COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A HURRY MANNER WITHOUT GIV ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CL AIMS. 7 THEREFORE, THE ASSESEE HAS FILED THE DETAILED SUBMI SSIONS ALONGWITH 7 SALE DEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM WHICH A SUM OF RS. 52,07,500/- WAS RECEIVED AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONGWITH THE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF DOCTOR STATING THAT SMT. JAGDISH KAUR MOTH ER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A SERIOUS PATIENT OF DEMEMTIA SINCE LAS T 6-8 YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE LEGA L HEIR IS LOOKING AFTER HIS MOTHER AND KEEP THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION WITH HIM WHICH LATER ON WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. SINCE THE E VIDENCE WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, THESE EVIDENCE S WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH W AS SENT TO THE AO FOR REMAND REPORT. HE REQUESTED THAT THERE IS NO VI OLATION OF ANY CONDITION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 19 62, HENCE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL REGARDI NG NOT FOLLOWING THE CONDITION DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 MAY BE DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECO RDS ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER T HE RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS UNDER:- 8 PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE [DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ]. 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUC E BEFORE THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER], EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY : (A) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO AD MIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLE D UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR (D) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. 9 (3) THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL NOT TA KE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE 8[ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE P OWER OF THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR F OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT O F THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE [ASSESSING OFFICER]) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271.] 9.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONDITION AS LAID DOWN U NDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION FROM AIR, THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 63,45,000/- IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SANSAD MARG , NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE DEPOSIT THAT HE HAS CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 25,50,807/-; RS. 34,00,000/- FROM SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND (ANCESTRAL) AND RS. 5,75,000/- FROM AGRICULTURAL IN COME. BUT IN 10 SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, IN SPITE OF THE REQUESTS OF THE AO. SEC ONDLY, THE AO HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CREDIT OF INTERES T OF FDR IN HIS BANK STATEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,92,799/- WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AO AND AO HAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT A S PER LAW AND HENCE, HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) O F THE I.T. ACT ON 28.12.2011. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE PARA NO . 4.1 AT PAGE NO. 3 TO 4 HAS STATED THAT THE ONE AND ONLY ONE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I.E. REGARDING THE DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 58 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. A CT. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE OF INTEREST ON FDR OF RS. 2 ,92,799/- WH ICH HAS NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALSO. NO DOUBT THAT AS PE R IMPUGNED ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONGWITH SUBMISSION AS WELL AS 7 SALE DEEDS OF LAND FROM WHICH A SUM OF RS. 52,07,500/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AN D DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONFRONTED TO THE AO AND OPPORTUNITY O F THOROUGHLY EXAMINATION OF THE SAME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN BY T HE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE REVE NUE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUG NED ORDER AND ARGUED ESPECIALLY THE GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS U/R. 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, BUT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED ALL THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I.E. 7 SALE DEE DS OF LAND FROM 11 WHICH THE ASSESSEEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 52,07,500/- BEF ORE THIS BENCH. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY REMAND REPO RT DATED 5.8.2013 FOR PERUSAL OF THE BENCH AND TAKEN THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE VERY LIGHTLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE A DMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THIS BENCH HAS RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 19 62 BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREF ORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN CHALL ENGED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ADMITTING THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS C ONTRARY TO THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCO ME TAX RULES, 1962. ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED BEFORE US THAT THE AO HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT T O BE ADMITTED BY THE AO. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ASS ESEE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR PRODUCING THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS, WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT AO HAS GIVEN OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AVAIL THE S AME AND THE AO HAS COMPETED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMINING THE ADDITIONAL 12 EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 10. AS REGARDS, THE ASSEESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNED, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ISSUES TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STANDS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/01/2017. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 09/01/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES