Sh. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, Ludhiana V. ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana

ITA 111/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9486 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH !' , # $ ! % & ' ( ) , $ BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 SH.BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA, 2988, STREET NO.0, LINK ROAD, GANESH NAGAR, INDL. AREA-A, LUDHIANA. THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AFTPS1141N /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR. DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.09.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-3, LUDHIANA [(IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] DATED 22 .12.2018, PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961,(HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.. ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 2 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE ABOVE APPEAL RELATED TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTING TO RS.50 LACS, REMAINING UNEXPLAINED. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE UNSECURED LOANS PERTAINED TO TWO PARTIES M/S FREAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AND M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.25 LACS EACH AND THE AO HAD MA DE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DI SCHARGE HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN DEPOSI TORS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED AT PARA 3 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AS UNDER: 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 25.09.2013 DECLARING THEREIN AN IN COME OF RS.38,84,870/-.THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.88,84,870/- VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PR OCURED TWO UNSECURED LOANS FROM TWO COMPANIES, NAMELY M/S FREAK BUI-LDCON PVT. LTD. AND M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,00,0007- RESPECTIVELY, ON ASKING THE DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS, THE APPELLANT HAS C OMPLETELY FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS WITH REGARD TO IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN DEPOSITORS OF LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,00,0007- , THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE ADDITION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS UNDER 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 3 THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF FILLING THE INSTANT APPEAL. 3. THEREAFTER IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A), WHEREIN SUBM ISSIONS WERE FILED IN WRITING WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PARAS 4 AND 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST SUBMISSION WAS RELATING TO THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASS ESSEE VIS- -VIS THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED ON MERI TS. IN THE SECOND SUBMISSION, IT WAS POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF THE LOAN CREDITORS WHICH HE STATED WAS UNABLE TO FILE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND HAD SOUGHT TIME TO PROCURE AND FILE THE SAME BUT HA D NOT BEEN GIVEN TIME. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LOAN DEPOSITORS, F ROM WHERE THE CHEQUES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE F ILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION SEEKI NG ADMISSION OF THE SAME BRINGING OUT BONAFIDE REASON FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE SAME EARLIER AS THERE WAS DELAY IN R ECEIVING THE COPIES OF THE SAME . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS FACT FINDS MENTION AT PARA 4. 2 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. THEREAFTER THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 4 DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.3 OF THE ORDER POINTIN G OUT THEREFROM THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FORWARDED THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO AND SOUGH T A REMAND REPORT ON THE SAME. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO FILED HIS LETTER ,IN RESPONSE, DATED 13.11.2018, OB JECTING TO THE ADMISSION OF THE SAME. REFERRING TO THE LETTER OF THE AO, REPRODUCED AT PARA 4.3 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT NO COMMENTS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED AND THE AO HAD MERELY REITERATED HIS STAND TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER IT WAS POINTED OUT, FROM PA RA 5 OF THE ORDER, THAT THE LD.CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT ATTEND SEVERAL HEARINGS BEFORE HIM, HAD FAILED TO FILE ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE LD.C IT(A), THEREFORE, STATED THAT HE WAS DISPOSING OF THE APPE AL EX- PARTE. THEREAFTER DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBS EQUENT PARAGRAPHS, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT AT THE SAME TIME, RELYING ON THE SAME DREW ADVERSE INFERENCES REGARDING THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SH E DOWNLOADED CERTAIN ADVERSE INFORMATION REGARDING T HE DEPOSITORS FROM THE INTERNET AND USING IT DISMISSED THE ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 5 CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE TRANS ACTION WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE ADDITION THEREFORE RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE STATED THAT TH E CIT(A) NEITHER CONFRONTED THE EVIDENCES GATHERED NOR AFFOR DED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE USING THE SAME AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO P ARAS 5.3 TO 5.6 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 5.3. AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 12/01 /2018, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH T HE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UN DER RULE 46A, TO ADMIT BANK STATEMENT'S OF UNSECURED LOAN DEPOSITORS COMPANIES NAMELY M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIV ATE LIMITED AND M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIM ITED. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE REASON S ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THESE DETAILS AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS AGITATED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AP PELLANT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FU RTHER RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONU S AND HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUIN ENESS OF TRANSACTION BY PROVIDING BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE L OAN DEPOSITORS COMPANY. A PERUSAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO STA TE ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE ABOVE BANK STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS MENTIONED IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS THAT THE FIRST QUESTI ONNAIRES ARE WITH REGARD TO PROVE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF UNSECURED LOANS WAS SENT TO ASS ESSEE ON 20/04/2015. HENCE IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS HOW T HE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED TO FURNISH THIS VITAL INFORM ATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR REMAND. VIDE LETTER DATED 16/10/2080. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SENT HIS REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 13/11/ 2018, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL MENTION ED THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE APP ELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALSO MENTIONED THAT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY, TO PROVE IDENTITY GENUINENES S AND ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 6 CREDITWORTHINESS, OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOAN AMO UNTING TO RS.50,00,000/- HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF FILING THERE INCOME TAX RETURN AND COPY OF BANK ACC OUNT, IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. HOWEVER DESPITE AVAILI NG VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ONLY THE CONF IRMATION OF LOANS, FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES WHICH COULD NOT S ERVE THE PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THIS INFORMATION AL SO, AT THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO PREVENT FURTHER E NQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE S AME FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECOMMENDED TO NOT TO AD MIT ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER 46A VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 13/11/2018. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AS MENTIONED BY ASSESSING OFFI CER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT, WITH THE CONT ENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATE LY DRAGGED THE PROCEEDINGS TILL THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS FAILED COMPLETELY TO DISCHARGE HIS ONU S TO PROVE GENUINENESS IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF UNSECURED LOAN DEPOSITORS. MOREOVER THE APPELLANT H AS NOT FILED ANY REJOINDER ALSO ON THE REMAND REPORT OF AP PELLANT, WHICH WAS SENT ALONG WITH FIXATION NOTICE DATED 03/ 12/2018, FIXING THE CASE TO 20/12/2018, WHEN NO ONE APPEARED ON APPELLANT'S BEHALF. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATIO N FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A, IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5.4. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT UNDOUBTEDLY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN AMP LE OPPORTUNITIES, TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING REQUI SITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSION TO DISCHARGE H IS ONUS IN ORDER TO PROVE IDENTITY.GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE FROM TWO COMPANIES NAMELY. M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIVA TE LIMITED AND M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LI MITED FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN RS. 50,00,000/- RS . 25,00,000 EACH FROM BOTH OF ABOVE MENTIONED COMPAN IES. IT IS ALSO UNDOUBTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGL Y DRAGGED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT' YEAR AND THE MONTH OF MARCH ON 28/03/20 16, THE ASSESSEE FINALLY STATED THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH BANK S TATEMENT, AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF DEPOSITORS COMPANIES. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNI SHED BANK STATEMENT OF THE COMPANIES MENTIONED (SUPRA) SUPPOR T HIS CONTENTION IN ORDER TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 7 THE AFORESAID COMPANIES. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE BA NK STATEMENT OF THESE COMPANIES REGULAR TRANSACTIONS H AS BEEN NOTICED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT EACH ENTRY OF DEBIT HAS BEEN TRANSFER ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITING SA ME AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DATE OR ONE OR TWO DAY S PRIOR M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED HAS GIVEN RS. 25 ,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09/03/2013 , BY CHEQUE NUMBER 31 165 WHEREAS, ON THE SAME DAY THERE IS A TRANSFER ENTRY OF RS. 50,01,300/~ IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. A CLOSE PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED , SUB MITTED BEFORE ME FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL AND MARCH 2013 SHOWED, TH AT FOR EACH DEBIT ENTRIES ,SAME AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN IN FAVOU R OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES AND THERE HAS BEE N TRANSFER ENTRY ON THE SAME DAY .FEATURING SAME AMOU NT OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAME TREND WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, IN THE CASE OF BANK AC COUNT OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED .MAINTA INED IN AXIS BANK WHEREIN THE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY IS ALS O SAME AS OF M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, AS B- 76 GAL I NO.413, RAMA GARDEN KARWAL NAGAR, DELHIL 10094. IN THE CASE OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, THE COMPAN Y HAS GIVEN RS.25,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30/03/2013. IT IS OBSERVED THAT RS. 45,02,000/- WERE TRANSFERRED IN T HE ACCOUNT OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMI TED FROM SUMO ADVERTISERS, FOLLOWING THE TREND IN ENTIRE MON TH OF MARCH 2013. THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY ONE NIT IN KUMAR JAIN, AS DIRECTOR OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PR IVATE LIMITED. AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPO RT, IN ORDER TO GRAB FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THESE T WO COMPANIES, I HAVE CARRIED OUT SIMPLE ENQUIRY ON THE INTERNET REGARDING INFORMATION FROM THESE TWO COMPANIES AND I HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF THERE ARE TWO COMMON DIRE CTOR IN M/S FREAK BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S STRUM IN FRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED NAMELY NITIN KUMAR JAIN . VINOD KUMAR. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED IT HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE INFORMATION AVAI LABLE ON INTERNET THAT THE COMPANIES NAME HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE LIST OF STRUCK OFF COMPANIES ON THE WEBSITE OF MCA. THE INF ORMATION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED IS A NON-GO VT COMPANY, INCORPORATED ON 05 JUL, 2010. IT'S A PRIVA TE UNLISTED COMPANY AND IS CLASSIFIED AS 'COMPANY LIMITED BY SH ARES'. ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 8 COMPANY'S AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STANDS AT RS 25.0 LAKH S AND HAS 98.2448% PAID-UP CAPITAL WHICH IS RS 24.56 LAKHS. S TRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED LAST ANNUAL GENERAL MEE T (AGM) HAPPENED ON 30 SEP, 2014. THE COMPANY LAST UPDATED ITS FMANCIALS ON 31 MAR, V 2014 AS PER MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MCA). STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMI TED IS MAJORLY IN REAL ESTATE AND RENTING BUSINESS FROM LA ST 8 YEARS AND CURRENTLY, COMPANY OPERATIONS ARE STRIKE OFF. C URRENT BOARD MEMBERS & DIRECTORS ARE NITIN KUMAR JAIN AND VINOD KUMAR. COMPANY IS REGISTERED IN DELHI (DELHI) REGIS TRAR OFFICE. STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED ADDRESS IS C-17, GROUND FLOOR, GURU NANAK P URA, LAXMINAGAR DELHI EAST DELHI DL 110092 IN. STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED DETAILS CIN U7010IDL2010PTC205141 DATE OF INCORPORATION 5 TH JUL, 2010 STATUS STRIKE OFF COMPANY CATEGORY COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES COMPANY SUB-CATEGORY NON-GOVT COMPANY COMPANY CLASS PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY REAL ESTATE AND RENTING AUTHORIZED CAPITAL 25.0 LAKHS PAID-UP CAPITAL 24.56 LAKHS PAID UP CAPITAL % 98.2448 REGISTRAR OFFICE CITY DELHI REGISTERED STATE DELHI REGISTRATION NUMBER 205241 REGISTRATION DATE 05 JUL, 2010 LISTING STATUS UNLISTED AGM LAST DATE HELD ON 30 TH SEP., 2014 BALANCE SHEET LAST UPDATED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2014 5.5 FURTHER AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON INTERNET THE DECISION OF HONA'BLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED DATED 06.11/2018, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE HONA'BLE COU RT, THAT M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, H AS BEEN FOUND TO BE INDULGED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES. THE HONA'BLE TRIBUNAL HEARING THE CASE OF M/S STRUM INFRA ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 9 DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HELD THAT M/S STRU M INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED IS A CONDUIT COMPANY OPERATED BY SH. VIVEK JAIN AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVID ING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES ALON G WITH OTHER PAPER CONCERN,S RUN BY SH. VIVEK JAIN. THE DECISION OF HONA'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-DELHI M/S. STRUM INFRA DEVELOPME NT PVT. VS ACIT, NEW DELHI ON 6 NOVEMBER, 2018 IN IT A NO. 2773/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14, IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE APPEALS AGA INST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMI NG THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. SINCE FACTS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SAME AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. SIMILAR GROUNDS ARE TAKEN IN OTHER SIX APPEALS, EXC EPT THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGURE. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF RE FERENCE AND FACILITY, FACTS IN CASE OF M/S ZOOM HERITAGE PROPER TIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI IN ITA 2774/DEL/2017 (AY 2013-14) ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 ON 31.3.2016 AS UPHELD BY THE LD . CIT(A) ARE PERVERSE TO THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE OF NOT FOLLOWING PROPER LAW AND PROCEDURE WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. \ 2. THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 25,12,5'97V- BEING COMMISSION INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLA NT AT THE RATE OF 0.60% MERELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PRESUMPTION AND GUESS WORK, WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ANY MATERIAL EITHER COLLECTED OR PLACED UPON RECORDS, W HICH THE ID. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED WHILE ADJUDICATI NG THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS E- RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,08,850/- ON 26.11.2014, WHICH WAS LATER PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'ACT'). THE AO OBSER VED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 31.3.2014, PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271F WILL BE INITIATED SEPARATELY. LATER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 10 U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 1.9.2015 AND S ERVED. NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNA IRE WAS ISSUED ON 3.12.2015. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE BRIEF IS SUE IN DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.16,44,240/ - BEING COMMISSION @0.60% (60 PAISE TO RS.1 PER RS. 100) ON TOTAL CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUIT PAPER COMPANY RUN BY SH. VIVEK JAIN AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES. THEREAFTER, THE A O ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.28,21,4501- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,44,240/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND RS.8,68,357/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED INTEREST INCOME. AGAINST THE AFOREMENTIONED ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 31.3.2016, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DOTED 31.01.201 7 AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELET ED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,68,357/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR HEAVILY SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE COMMISSION @ 0.60%, WHICH NEED NOT T O BE INTERFERED. 6. 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THA T THE SOLE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS ESTIMATION OF RATE OF COM MISSION ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT TH AT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PAPER COMPANY AND NOT DOING A NY REAL BUSINESS. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDE R AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A CONDUIT COMPANY OPERATED BY SH. VIVEK JAIN AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIO US BENEFICIARIES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM INCLINE D TO APPROVE THE FINDING OFLD. CIT(A) AND AO TO THE EFFE CT THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AN ENTRY PROVIDER. HOWEVER, THE NEXT QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS REGARDING ESTIMATION OF COMMISSION INCOME TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) HAVE APPLIED 0.60% (60 PAISE TO RS 1 PER RS. 100) ON TOTAL CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEREAS ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 11 THE LD. AR IS RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR WHEREIN, IT H AS BEEN STATED THAT APPELLANT WAS CHARGING 0.10% (10 PAISE TO RS 1 PER RS. 100). HOWEVER, ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, NEITHER OF THE SIDES COULD SUBSTANTIATE THE BASIS F OR ARRIVING AT RATE OF 0.60% OR 0.10%. I AM ALSO AWARE OF THE F ACT THAT IN CASE OF BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY, THERE CANNOT BE A SINGLE RATE OF COMMISSION AND SAME VARY FROM CASE TO CASE AND LARGELY DEPENDS UPON THE QUANTUM O F ENTRY. 7.KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, I DEEM JUST AND PROPER TO ESTIMATE TH E AVERAGE COMMISSION @30% (30 PAISE TO RS. 1 PER RS. 100) ON CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT AO HAS MADE DOUBLE ADDITION TO T HE EXTENT THAT BENEFIT OF NETTING-OFF WITH RESPECT TO INCOME ALREADY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF IN COME WAS NOT ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE INCOME AFTER ALLOWING BENEFIT OF INCOME ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN. 8. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 9 RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S. 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, H ENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABL E AFTER GIVING EFFECT OF THIS ORDER. AS FAR AS INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(L)(C) IS CONCERNED, SINCE NO P ENALTY UNDER THE SAID SECTION HAS YET BEEN LEVIED THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HENC E, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 9. SINCE IN ALL THE OTHER 06 APPEALS, SIMILAR FACTS ARE PERMEATING AND SAME FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN, THEREFO RE, MY FINDING GIVEN ABOVE WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN OTHER 06 APPEALS ALSO, BECAUSE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, E VIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 07 APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED ON 06TH NOVEMBER, 2018. ' 5.6. ACCORDING.LV THE WITHOUT ANY IOTA OF DOUBT IT IS CONSTRUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES FROM TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S FREAK BUILDCO N PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRI VATE LIMITED ARE CONDUIT COMPANIES OPERATED BY SH. VIVEK JAIN ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 12 AND ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES ALONG WITH OTHER PAPER CONCER N,S SH. VIVEK JAIN NITIN KUMAR JAIN, VINOD KUMAR ARE COMMON DIRECTORS IN BOTH OF THE COMPANIES. THE DECISION OF HONABLE ITAT PERTAINS TO SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 201 3-2014. AS PER THE DECISION OF HONA'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, AS REPRODU CED SUPRA ITS UNDOUBTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM THESE TWO COMPANIES, HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONU S TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THESE CONC ERNS. THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE APPE LLANT'S DUTY TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, G ENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF UNSECURED LOAN DEPOSITORS A T THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN MY CONSIDERED OP INION THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED BADLY TO PROVE ALL THREE L IMBS OF SECTION 68 THAT THIS IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED AND CONSIDERE D, VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. AFT ER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE VARI OUS SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE APPELLANT, I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT AS IT HAS FAILED TO DISCHAR GE ITS BASIC ONUS TO PROVE THE UNSECURED LOANS AT THE TIME OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MERELY FURNISHING OF PAN AND CONFIRMAT ION AND PRODUCING FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS NOT ENOUGH. IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO PROVE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE LOAN DEPOSITORS. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE ALSO UPHELD THIS VIEW OF ID AO THAT THERE ARE THREE LIMB OF SECTION 68 AND IT IS THE PR IMARY ONUS OF ASSESSEE ONLY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUIN ENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED OUT TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS AGAINST THE PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SINCE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCES NOT ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION AND ALSO ON INFORMATION COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE ,WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE EARLIER HEARING S BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WERE NOT ATTENDED SINCE ALL SUBMISSIO NS HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE HER AND AFTER THE RECEI PT OF THE ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 13 REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O DATED 13/11/18 NOTICE D ATED 03/12/18, FIXING THE HEARING ON 20.12.2018 WAS ISSU ED WHICH DATE REMAINED UNATTENDED BUT THAT IMMEDIATELY ON THE NEXT DAY ITSELF I.E. 21.12.2018 THE APPELLATE O RDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HE PLEADED THEREFORE THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) TO PROVIDE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RESPONSE TO THE ADVERSE MATERIAL AND INFORMATION RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A). 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET WAS PUBLICALL Y AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO CONF RONT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY AN D GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIN D MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEING BASED ON MATERI AL COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR HOLDING THE CREDITS INGENUINE RESTS O N INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS, INFORMATION DERIVED FROM INTERNET ABOUT THE CREDITORS, AND ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ITAT IN CASE OF ONE OF THE CREDITORS. THE BANK STATEMENT S OF THE ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 14 CREDITORS ADMITTEDLY WERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING CHEQUE ISSUED FOR MAKING LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD NOT ADMITTED THE EV IDENCES FOR ADJUDICATION. FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS, WE FIND , THE LD.CIT(A) COLLECTED INFORMATION THAT THERE WERE AM OUNTS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASS ESSEE IN ALL CASES. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(A) EXTRACTED INFORMAT ION FROM THE INTERNET THAT THE NAME OF ONE OF THE DEPOSITOR COMPANIES HAD BEEN STRUCK OFF FROM THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES. SHE ALSO HAD INFORMATION IN HER POSSESSI ON THAT THE ITAT HAS HELD IN CASE OF ONE DEPOSITOR COMPANY THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ONLY. READING ALL THE AFORESAID INFORMATION TOGETHER, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE N OT GENUINE. 7. UNDENIABLY, THE AFORESAID INFORMATION WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE LD. DR HAS ADM ITTED TO THE SAID FACT AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY THING IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWING THAT THE SAID INFOR MATION WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. CLEARLY, THE IMPUGN ED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THAT NONE SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHE ARD. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ,WHILE ELUCIDATING ON THE SAID ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 15 PRINCIPLE, IN A FULL BENCH RULING IN THE CASE OF J .T.(INDIA) EXPORTS VS UNION OF INDIA(2003) 262 ITR 269(DELHI), NOTED THAT NOTICE IS THE FIRST LIMB OF THIS PRINCIPLE. T HAT A PARTY SHOULD BE APPRISED OF THE CASE TO BE MET WITH AND A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO MAKE ITS REPRESENTATION. TH AT IT IS AN APPROVED RULE OF FAIRPLAY THAT THE PARTY SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE TO THE CASE BEFORE AN ADVERSE ORDER IS PASSE D AGAINST IT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NOTED AS UNDER: 3. NATURAL JUSTICE IS ANOTHER NAME FOR COMMONSENSE JUSTICE. RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE NOT CODIFIED CANONS. BUT THEY ARE PRINCIPLES INGRAINED INTO THE CONSCIENCE O F MAN. NATURAL JUSTICE IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A COMMONSENSE LIBERAL WAY. JUSTICE IS BASED SUBSTANTI ALLY ON NATURAL IDEALS AND HUMAN VALUES. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS TO BE FREED FROM THE NARROW AND RESTRICT ED CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A FORMULATED LAW INVOLVING LINGUISTIC TECHNICALITIES AND GRAMMATICAL NICETIES. IT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF JUSTIC E WHICH HAS TO DETERMINE ITS FORM. 4. THE EXPRESSION, NATURAL JUSTICE AND LEGAL JUSTI CE DO NOT PRESENT A WATER-TIGHT CLASSIFICATION. IT IS THE SUB STANCE OF JUSTICE WHICH IS TO BE SECURED BY BOTH, AND WHENEVE R LEGAL JUSTICE FAILS TO ACHIEVE THIS SOLEMN PURPOSE, NATUR AL JUSTICE IS CALLED IN AID OF LEGAL JUSTICE. NATURAL JUSTICE REL IEVES LEGAL JUSTICE FROM UNNECESSARY TECHNICALITY, GRAMMATICAL PEDANTRY OR LOGICAL PREVARICATION. IT SUPPLIES THE OMISSIONS OF A FORMULATED LAW. 5. THE ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS RECOGNISED BY ALL CIVILIZED STATES IS OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE WH EN A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY EMBARKS ON DETERMINING DISPUTES BETWE EN THE PARTIES. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE WELL-SETTLED. THE FIR ST AND FOREMOST PRINCIPLE IS WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS AUD I ALTERAM PARTEM RULE. IT SAYS THAT NONE SHOULD BE CO NDEMNED UNHEARD. NOTICE IS THE FIRST LIMB OF THIS PRINCIPLE . IT MUST BE PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS. IT SHOULD APPRAISE THE PAR TY DETERMINATIVELY THE CASE HE HAS TO MEET. TIME GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE SHOULD BE ADEQUATE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO M AKE HIS ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 16 REPRESENTATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE OF THE K IND AND SUCH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ORDER PASSED AGAIN ST THE PERSON IN ABSENTIA BECOMES WHOLLY VITIATED. THUS, I T IS BUT ESSENTIAL THAT A PARTY SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE OF T HE CASE BEFORE ANY ADVERSE ORDER IS PASSED AGAINST HIM. THI S IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE . IT IS AFTER ALL AN APPROVED RULE OF FAIR-PLAY. 8. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO REST ORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING I MPERATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRA NSACTION WAS GENUINE , ARE DIRECTED TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUD ICATION. THE LD.CIT(A) IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO OBTAIN REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE EVIDENCES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 4 6A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962 AND AFTER CONFRONTING ALL MAT ERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- !' % & ' ( ) (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) # $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER + $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %! /DATED: 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2019 * * ITA NO.111/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2013- 14 17 &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR