M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1029/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJAF
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Procedural lapse; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. P. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. VS. ITO (NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MINDA CAPITAL LTD.) WARD 15(2) C/O. M/S. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN NO. : AABCS7843P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI TANEJA, F. C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHIM SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(A) DATED 1.2. 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE F IRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- THAT HAVING REGARDS TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN ASSUMING JURIS DICTION U/S 147 ON THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY I.E. M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASSESSED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, MORE SO IN VIEW OF DELHI HIGH COURT DECISIONS :- ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 2 SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (DEL.) IMPSAT (P) LTD. VS. ITO 91 ITD 354 (DEL.) 2. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 14 7 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ASSE SSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 1,40,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE IT A CT AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL MONEY RECEIPT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT, A SSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD WERE AS UNDER :- THE FIRST LEGAL GROUND IS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 28.03.2011 IN THE NAME OF M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. (PA N AACCR1743E) AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER ISSUED ANOTH ER NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30.03.2011. THE ASSESEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2011, BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. AO T HAT THE COMPANY NAMELY M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. H AS ALREADY BEEN MERGED WITH M/S MINDA CAPITAL LTD. PB 32 TO 65 IS THE COPY OF HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 29.08.2007 EVIDENCING THE MERGER WITH EFFECT FROM 1.04.2006 WITH M/S MINDA CAPITAL LTD. THUS, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASONS U/S 148 THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY VIZ. M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE DATE OF RECORDING OF REASONS BY TH E LD. AO. THE LD. AO DID NOT DROP THE PROCEEDING AND WENT AHEAD WITH THE FRAMING OF THE ORDER AND HE FINALLY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. IT MAY THUS BE SEEN THAT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF A NON- EXISTING PERSON AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS VOID-AB- INITIO AND THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO. ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 3 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (DEL) IMPSAT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO. 91 ITD 354. 92 TTJ 55552 (DEL) M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA (P) LTD. ITA NO. 4016/DEL/2005 DATED 28.04.2006. PAMPASAR DISTILLERY LTD. VS. ACIT. 15 SOT 331(KOL) ORS. (2006) 105 TTJ 303 (DEL) MODI CORP. LTD. CALCUTTA INSTALLMENTS PVT. LTD. VS . JCIT & CIT VS. EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. 40 ITR 38 (MAD) AFFIRMED IN 53 ITR 250 (SC) 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER :- CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE REOPENING PROCEEDING CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INVALID. FURTHER, THE APPELLAN TS CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT . LTD. WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF N OTICE, IS NOT ACCEPTED AS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I. E. 2004-05, THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE AS THE MERGER TOOK PLACE W.E.F. 01.04.200 6. EVEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT TH E RETURN ALREADY FILED ON 11.08.2004 AS FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. APPARENTLY, THIS RETURN W AS FILED BY M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND NOT BY M/S. MINDA CAPITAL LTD. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT HA S BEEN FRAMED IN THE NAME OF MINDA CAPITAL LTD. I.E. THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN CORRECTI VE ACTION WHEN THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH HAD B EEN FRAMED ON 30.11.2007 HAD NOT RAISED THE ISSUE REGAR DING AMALGAMATION OF COMPANY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 4 PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH THIS ASSESSMENT WAS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF AMALGAMATION AS PER THE C LAIM OF THE COMPANY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 (1B), WHICH DEFINES AMALGAMATION IN RELATION TO COMPANIES, AL L THE PROPERTY/LIABILITIES OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY OR COMPANIES IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AMALGAMATION BECOME THE PROPERTY/LIABILITIES OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY . FURTHER, NO SUCH OBJECTION WAS EITHER MADE DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE COMPLETI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE, THEREFORE, VALID AND THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT, REFERRED TO BY THE APPEL LANT IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. HAS THUS CORREC TLY BEEN ISSUED AND THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLA NT COMPANY AGAINST ISSUE OF NOTICE IS, THEREFORE, NOT UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED TH E RECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSU MPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT VALID. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN FRAMED UPON M/S. R AJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2011 HAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE COMPANY NAMELY M/S RAJESH MARKETIN G SERVICES LTD. HAS ALREADY BEEN MERGED WITH M/S MINDA CAPITAL LTD. ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 5 6. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 29.8.2007 EVIDENCING THE MERGER WITH EF FECT FROM 1.4.2006 WITH MINDA CAPITAL LTD. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASONS U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIZ. M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. WAS NOT INEXISTENCE ON THE DATE OF RECORDING OF REASONS BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE BEING INFORM ED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT INEXISTENCE, ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT DROP THE PROCEEDINGS AND WENT AHEAD WITH THE FRAMIN G OF THE ORDER AND HE FINALLY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE N AME OF M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF NON -EXISTING PERSON AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS VOID-AB-INITIO. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT 247 ITA 500 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5272/DEL/2010 I N THE CASE OF WHITE LINE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 7.6.2013. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 6 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HONBL E HIGH COURT DATED 29.8.2007 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006 WITH M/S MINDA CAPITAL LTD. THUS, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASONS U/S 1 48 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIZ. M/S RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. WAS NOT INEXISTENCE. VIDE LETTER DATED 13.10.2011 AND OTHER LETTER DATED 20.10.2011 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. HAS MERGED WITH SHANKAR WIR E LINKS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND LATER NAME OF THE SHANKAR WIRE LINKS INDIA PVT. LTD. CHANGED TO MINDA CAPITAL LTD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. IS NOT VALID. 9. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT 24 CTR 500 HAS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAS BEE N AMALGAMATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY AND STANDS DISSOLV ED IS NULL AND VOID; ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTI NG ENTITY IS A ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 7 JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL I RREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH CAN BE CURED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B. THE RELEVANT EXPOSITION BY THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER :- NO DOUBT, S WAS AN ASSESSEE AND AN INCORPORATED COMPANY AND WAS IN EXISTENCE WHEN IT FILED THE RETU RNS IN RESPECT OF TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CASE COULD BE SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD BE INITIATED, S GO T AMALGAMATED WITH MC LTD. IT WAS THE RESULT OF THE SCHEME OF THE AMALGAMATION FIELD BEFORE THE COMPANY JUDGE OF THIS COURT WHICH WAS DULY SANCTIONED VIDE ORDERS DT. 11 TH FEB. 2004. WITH THIS AMALGAMATION MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST JULY, 2003, S CEASED TO EXIST. THAT IS THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE EFFECT IN LAW. THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION ITSELF PROVIDED FOR THIS CONSEQUENCE, INASMUCH AS SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE SANCTIONING OF TH E SCHEME, S WAS ALSO STOOD DISSOLVED BY SPECIFIC ORDE R OF THIS COURT. WITH THE DISSOLUTION OF THIS COMPANY, I TS NAME WAS STRUCK OFF FROM THE ROLLS OF COMPANIES MAINTAIN ED BY THE ROC. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT IS A JURISTIC PERSON. IT TAKES ITS BI RTH AND GETS LIFE WITH THE INCORPORATION. IT DIES WITH THE DISSOLUTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ON AMALGAMATION, THE AMALGAMAT ING COMPANY CEASES TO EXIST IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CLINCHING POSITION IN LAW, IT IS DIFF ICULT TO DIGEST THE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN FACT IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY AND THERE WAS ONLY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT. AFTER THE SANCTION OF THE SCHEME ON 11 TH FEB., 2004, S CEASED TO EXIST W.E.F. 1 ST JULY, 2003. EVEN IF S HAD FILED THE RETURNS, IT BECAME INCUMBENT UPON THE IT AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTITUTE THE SUCCESSOR IN PLACE OF THE ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 8 SAID DEAD PERSON. WHEN NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) WAS SENT, THE APPELLANT/AMALGAMATED COMPANY APPEARED AND BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO. H E, HOWEVER, DID NOT SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE APPELLA NT ON RECORD. INSTEAD, THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF S WHICH WAS NON-EXISTING ENTITY ON THAT DAY . IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE NAME OF S WOULD CLEARLY BE VOID. SUCH A DEFECT CANN OT BE TREATED AS PROCEDURAL DEFECT. MERE PARTICIPATION BY THE APPELLANT WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT AS THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW. SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNBD ICATE LTD. VS. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 61 : (1990) 186 ITR 278 (SC) FOLLOWED. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD B E CURED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B. THE FR AMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE C ANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON. THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE. CIT VS. NORTON MOTORS (2006) 200 CTR (P&H) 604 : (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P&H), CIT VS. HARJINDER KAUR (2009) 22 2 CTR (P&H) 254 : (2009) 19 DTR (P&H) 211 AND SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH VS. CIT (2005) 196 CTR (ALL) 416 : (2006) 280 ITR 396 (ALL) RELIED ON. SINCE THE RETURNS WERE FILED BY S ON THE DAY WHEN IT WAS IN EXISTENCE IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO CARR Y OUT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THOSE RETURNS AFTER TAKING THE PROCEEDINGS AFRESH FROM THE STAGE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO FIRST SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN PLACE OF S AND THEN ISSUE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, SU CH A COURSE OF ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE AO ONLY IF IT IS STILL PERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW AND HAS NOT BECOME TIME- BARRED. ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 9 10. WE FIND THAT ABOVE CASE LAW IS SQUARELY APPL ICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE M/S. RAJESH MARK ETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. HAS AMALGAMATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY VIDE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DATED 29.8.2007 EVIDENCING MERGE R WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006. THIS ASPECT WAS DULY INFORMED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.10.2011 AND AN OTHER LETTER DATED 21.10.2011. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT WITH THIS AMALGA MATION MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006 M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES LTD. CEASED TO EXIST. THUS, BY THIS AMALGAMATION, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. CEASED TO EXIS T TO THE EYE OF LAW. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSMENT WAS IN FACT IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATED C OMPANY AND THERE WAS ONLY PROCEDURAL EFFECT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID CASE LAW. EVEN IF M/S RAJESH MARKETING SE RVICES PVT. LTD. HAD FILED THE RETURNS IT BECAME INCUMBENT UPON THE I.T. AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTITUTE THE SUCCESSOR IN PLACE OF THE SAID DEAD PERSON. WHEN THE NOTICE WITH REGARD TO RE-ASSESSMENT WAS SENT, THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY APPEARED AND BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON RECO RD. INSTEAD THE ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 10 ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME O F M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS NON-EXISTING ENTITY ON THAT DAY. IN SUCH SITUATION AS EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE DECISION THE ASSESSMENT PASSED IN THE NAME OF M/S. RAJESH MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD. WOULD CLEARLY BE VOID. SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE TREATED AS PROCEDURAL DEFECT AS EXPOUNDED IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW. MERE PARTICIPATION BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT AS THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW. 11. ONCE, IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON- EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURAL IR REGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD BE CURED BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 292B. THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXIST ING ENTITY / PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE C ANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON. 12. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS C ASE IS INVALID ON THE BASIS OF EXPOSITION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS INVALID. ITA NO. 1029/DEL/2013 11 13. SINCE, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT RE-ASSESS MENT IN THIS CASE WAS INVALID, OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AR E NOW OF ONLY ACADEMIC INTEREST. HENCE, THEY ARE NOT BEING ADJUDI CATED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.P.YADAV) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 23 AUGUST, 2013 B.RUKHAIYAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI