Balwant Singh, Gurgaon V. ITO,Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

ITA 1105/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9773 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS; Capital Gains; FORM 26AS
• Section: 54F; 139(1); 68; 54; 2; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1105/DEL/20 18 (A.Y 2014-15) BALWAN T SINGH H. NO. D-138, SUSHANT LOK-III, 2 ND FLOOR, SECTOR-57, GURGAON, GURGAON, HARYANA PAN ACTPS5859A (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1(3) GURGAON, HARYANA (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 24.01.2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)- 1, GURGAON, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.2,49,9 00/- REPRESENTING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND HELD THEM TO BE UN EXPLAINED DEPOSITS AND BROUGHT FORWARD TO TAX AS INCOME FOR THE INSTANT AS SESSMENT YEAR. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE APPELLAN T TO SUPPORT THE CASH DEPOSITS WAS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND FAMILY SAVINGS OF HUF WHICH WAS QUITE REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, ADDITION SUSTAINED IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT AND APPELLANT BY SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 10.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.07.2020 2 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 UNTENABLE. 2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF R S. 35,73,050/- REPRESENTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F OF THE ACT. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN WAS DU LY INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT FOR CO NSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THERE WAS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION TO HOLD THA T APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 2.2 THAT THE FINDING THAT APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED LAND IN THE NAME OF WIFE AND THEREFORE, APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM O F DEDUCTION IS ALSO BASED ON FACTUAL MISCONCEPTION AND UNTENABLE. 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO HOLD THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 F OF THE ACT. 2.4 FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD HANDED OVE R THE POSSESSION OF THE PLOT OF LAND BY THE BUILDER COULD NOT IPSO FACTO BE A GROUND TO DENY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 THAT FURTHERMORE, EVEN THE BASIS ADOPTED THAT THE A GREEMENT WAS SIGNED ON 13.12.2017 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME AND NO AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN AC COUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) O F THE ACT OR BEFORE THE DATE OF ACTUAL FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS ALSO NOT BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW AND DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IS ALSO INCORRECT, MISCONCEI VED AND UNTENABLE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DIRECTING THE CREDI T OF TAX OF RS. 80,000/- AGAINST THE DEMAND COMPUTED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT DATED 23.12.2016. 4. THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE CORDED BY THE LEARNED 3 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO RECORD, LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED AND UNTENABLE. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT IT BE HELD THAT ADDIT ION/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND APPE AL OF THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. 3. RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 9,36,730/- WAS FI LED ON 30/07/2014. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES OVER THE YEAR. THE DATE WISE DETAIL OF CASH WITHDR AWAL AND CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TABULATED AT PAGE 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT. NO REPLY WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HEREAFTER CONSIDERED THE DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWALS, CASH DEPOSITS AND AFTE R GIVING THE CREDIT FOR CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE PRIOR TO CASH DEPOSITS AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2 LACS ON 6/4/2013 AND RS. 49,900/- ON 17/5/2013 REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR SOLD FL AT AT GURGAON FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 77,47,029/-. THE CAPITAL GAI NS ARISING ON THIS TRANSACTION WAS SHOWN AT RS.35,73,050/-, AGAINST THIS THE ASSES SEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 70 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ONLY A COPY OF THE BUYER AGREEMEN T FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT AND NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE REGARDING INVESTMENT MADE IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDI NGLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. NO REPLY WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,73,050/- WAS C HARGEABLE OF TAX. THIS 4 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 AMOUNT WAS ACCORDINGLY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO 1 TO 1.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OF BSNL AND HIS SON A ND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ARE PRACTICING DOCTORS. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. AR POINT ED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 10,38,062/- TDS CERTIFICATE A/W FORM 26AS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURE LAN D AND CONFIRMATION FROM BROTHER REGARDING RECEIPT OF RS. 200000/- ON 02.03. 2013 AS SHARE IN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HUF. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARBITRARILY PROCEEDED TO DISREGARD THE CONFIRMATION/ EVIDENCE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. TH E LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AN EXPLANATION BY AN ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE REASONABLE, CANNOT BE REJECTED ON CAPRICIOUS OR ARBITRARY GROUND OR ON ME RE SUSPICION OR ON IRRELEVANT GROUNDS. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS: I) CHUNNILAL TIKAAMCHAND COAL LTD. VS. CIT 27 ITR 602 (PAT) II) MEHTA PARIKH & CO. VS. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) III) LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) IV) SRI RAM TANDON VS. CIT 42 ITR 689 (ALL) THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE TH E ASSESSEE IS NEITHER REQUIRED BY LAW NOR IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE DEEMING SECTION 68 REVEALS THAT AN ADDITION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, THE VERY SI NE QUA NON FOR MAKING OF 5 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 PRE-SUPPOSES A CREDIT OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR THE PREVIOU S YEAR. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A CREDIT IN THE 'BANK ACCOUNT' OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A CREDIT IN THE 'BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT' ARE NOT THE 'BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE'. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE AS F OLLOWS: I) K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. AND ORS. VS. DIT AND ORS. 298 ITR 1 (SC) II) CIT VS. MAYAWATI REPORTED IN 338 ITR 563 III) CIT VS. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI 141 ITR 67 (BOM) IV) SHANTA DEVI VS. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H) IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 2,49,900/- MAY BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH D EPOSITS MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HUF AND PAST SAVINGS WERE FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED AT THE S TAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, NO EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME WAS SHOWN IN ANY RETURN FILED WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, T HE CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ITS AN ADMITTED POSITION. THE OTHER RELEVANT FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME WHILE FILING THE RETURNS. BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURE LAN D AND CONFIRMATION FROM BROTHER REGARDING RECEIPT OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON 02.0 3.2013 AS SHARE IN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HUF. AS REGARDS TO EXPLANATIO N FOR RS. 49,900/-, THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED AS FAMILY SAVINGS BY THE ASSESSE E. THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT 6 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 AT ALL TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ABSENCE OF MAINT ENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT AS T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT BOTH THE AUTHOR ITIES IGNORED THE SAME AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 TO 1.1 ARE ALLOWED. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 TO 2.5 RELATED TO ADDITI ON MADE OF RS.35,73,050/- WHICH REPRESENTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM IS SUPPOR TED BY FOLLOWING EVIDENCES WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER: A EVIDENCE ON RECORD I) COPY OF EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF FLAT NO. B-7 /703, TULIP ORANGE, SECTOR-70, GURGAON ON 28.6.2013 II) COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT TO RAMPRASTHA PRO MOTERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD ON 13.05.2013. III) COPY OF CHEQUES DATED 13.05.2013 GIVEN WITH APPLICA TION FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOT TO RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD . IV) COPY OF BUYER AGREEMENT V) COPY OF APPLICATION AND EMAILS WITH RAMPRASTHA PROM OTERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. VI) COPY OF FORM 26AS ISSUED BY BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LT D. VII) COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VIII) COPY OF RECEIPT FROM RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS & DEVELOP ERS (P) LTD. 7 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 IX) COPY OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN X) COPY OF REVISED COMPUTATION INCOME FOR LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF FLAT BEARING NO. B-7/703, TULIP ORANGE, SECTOR-7 0, GURGAON. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CERT AIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH SHOULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE SAME IS AS F OLLOWS: B ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I) NOC FROM ORIGINAL APPLICANT TO DEVELOPER TO INCL UDE BALWANT SINGH AS JOINT OWNER AND ALSO UNDERTAKING FROM NEW APPLICANT DATED 09.07.2019. II) DETAIL OF CHANGES IN THE ALLOTTEE/APPLICANTS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,73,050/- ON FOLLOWING BASIS: I) THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A BUYER AGREEMENT FO R PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. II) THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WITH THE BUYER ON 13.12.20 14 I.E. AFTER THE FILLING OF RETURN ON 30.07.2014 - THEREFORE, THE AM OUNT UTILIZED BY HIM TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE DEPOSITED IN AN ACCOU NT IN A SPECIFIED BANK OR INSTITUTION, TILL THAT DATE ONLY CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT UTILIZED ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOT BY THAT DATE AND NO AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE OR DEPOSITED IN AN AC COUNT IN A SPECIFIED BANK OR INSTITUTION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUALLY FILIN G THE RETURN OF INCOME III) THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ORIG INAL ASSET. IN FACT THE CONSTRUCTION HAD NOT YET STARTED AS THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PLOT UNDER REFERENCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . 8 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL 351 ITR 4(DEL) LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT 402 ITR 117 ( RAJASTHAN) ITO VS. S. VARDARAJAN 33 TTJ (MAD.) 466 THIRD CIT VS. V. NATARAJAN 287 ITR 271 (MADRAS) WHERE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION HAD FLOWN FROM ASSESSEE HE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. SINCE ENTIRE CONSIDERA TION HAS BEEN FLOWN FROM ASSESSEE AND NO CONSIDERATION HAD FLOWN FROM ANY OT HER PERSON, MERELY BECAUSE IN SALE DEED NAME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON WAS ALSO MENTIONED, ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON THAT GROUND. 9. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S EEKS TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 35,73,050/- REPRESENT ING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER B OOK CONSISTING DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH DEVELOPED AND POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE POST PASSING OF ORDER BY CIT(A) ON 24.01.2018. THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS NOC FROM ORIG INAL APPLICANT TO DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE BALWANT SINGH AS JOINT OWNER & ALSO UNDERTAKING FROM NEW APPLICANT ALONG WITH DETAIL OF CHANGES IN THE A LLOTTEE/APPLICANTS. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION AND AFTER VERIFYING THE SAME TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TENABLE OR NOT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, TH E ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO. 2 TO 2.5 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD JULY, 2020 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 03/07/2020 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 1105/DEL/2018 DATE OF DICTATION 12.06.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.06.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 06.07.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR OR DER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 06.07.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 06.07.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK