Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun V. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

ITA 1213/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0839 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 DOLLY BATRA, 17/6, CANAL ROAD, DEHRADUN PAN NO. AKIPB4695E VS PR. CIT DEHRADUN. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI ROHIT TIWARI, ADV. REVENUE BY SMT. PARAMITA M BISWAS, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF PR. CIT-DEHRADUN DATED 31/1 2/2015 U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LD. REPRESENTATIVE S OF BOTH THE DATE OF HEARING 18.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.03.2019 2 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS SAME IN BOTH THE AP PEALS AND THEY HAVE ARGUED IN AY 2006-07 AND HAVE SUBMITTED THAT O RDER IN THIS YEAR MAY BE FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS, WE DECIDE THE APPEAL FOR AY 2006-07 AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1213/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2006-07) : 3. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/14 7 OF THE ACT DATED 30/01/2014. THE AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INV.), DEHRADUN REGARDING THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS, PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 48 WERE INITIATED IN THIS CASE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILING HER RET URN OF INCOME, WHEREAS, HER INTEREST INCOME WAS REPORTED AT RS. 4, 71,064/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE THERETO ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,95,870/-. THE AO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN SU BMISSION. THE AO ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014. 4. THE LD. PR. CIT INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 26 3 OF THE ACT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06/11/2015 TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LANDS SOLD ON VA RIOUS DATES. THE DETAILS ARE MENTIONED AT PAGE 1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IN 6 SL. NO., MENTIONING DATE OF SALE, THE NAME OF THE SELLER (ON E OF THEM IS ASSESSEE), NAMES OF PURCHASERS, SALE CONSIDERATION AND SHARE 3 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLI ES BEFORE PR. CIT IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE INHERITED T HE LAND FROM HER FATHER LATE SHRI CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR AFTER HIS DE ATH ALONG WITH TWO CO-OWNERS NAMELY SMT. LALITA KAPOOR (SISTER) AN D SHRI D.D. KAPOOR (BROTHER). THE LAND IN QUESTION IS MORE THA N 8 KMS AWAY FROM THE NAGAR NIGAM OR CANTONEMENT BOARD AND IS SITUATED IN RURAL AREA. THEREFORE, THE GAIN AROSE ON SALE OF S UCH LAND IS EXEMPT U/S 2(14)(III) BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FALL UNDE R THE DEFINITION CAPITAL ASSET. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY HER FATHER IN PIECES IN THE YEARS 1985 TO 1996 AND HAS BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS TILL THE DATE OF SALE. FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL CO-O WNERS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S CITY DEVELOPERS TO SALE THE SAID LAND IN THE YEAR 2002. IN THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS MENTIONE D THAT THE TOTAL LAND ALONGWITH A HOUSE BUILT THEREON, TIN SHED STAN DING THEREON, TWO TUBE WELLS AND PRESENTLY CROPS STANDING ON THE SAID LAND ALONGWITH ALL AGRICULTURAL ACCESSORIES PRESENT ON T HE LAND SITUATED IN MAUZA, CENTRAL HOPE TOWN, DEHRADUN. LATER ON BO TH THE PARTIES COULD NOT PERFORM THEIR PARTS OF THE AGREEM ENT. AT THE SAME TIME SHRI CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR FATHER OF THE ASSE SSEE DIED ON 22 ND AUGUST, 2004 WITHOUT EXECUTING THE TERMS OF THE CO NTRACT. BUT THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS HONORED BY HIS SUCCES SOR. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE COPIES OF THE PURCHASE DE EDS AND AGREEMENT TO SALE BETWEEN SHRI CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR AN D M/S CITY DEVELOPERS WERE FURNISHED. COPY OF KHASRA AND INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 2004-05 OF SH. CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR SHOW ING THE 4 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO FILED. THE LD. PR. CI T ON PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT NOTICED THAT VIDE PARA 3 OF THE AGREE MENT, THE SECOND PARTY M/S CITY DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN GIVEN OPT ION TO HAVE THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME O F HIS NOMINEE BY WAY OF ONE OR MORE SALE DEEDS AND SH. CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR SHALL HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SAME. IN PARA 9 OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES I.E. PROPOSED SALE CONSIDERATION ALSO INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT CHARGE S OF LAND IN QUESTION. THE PROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF THESE CHARG ES SHALL BE MADE BY PARTY NO. 2 I.E. M/S CITY DEVELOPERS TO PAR TY NO. 1 I.E. SH. CHAMAN LAL KAPOOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF T HE DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS MADE BY HER ALONG WITH CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND. ON GOING THROUGH THE SALE DEEDS PLACED ON RECORD, IT WAS FOU ND THAT LAND IN QUESTION WERE SOLD IN PIECE MEAL TO DIFFERENT PURCHASERS AND M/S CITY DEVELOPERS HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE SALES MADE. LANDS WERE SOLD IN SQ. MTRS. THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED IN F.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT LAND SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL NOTIFIED AREA UTTARANCHAL AND WAS BEING PURCHASED FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. THUS, LAND I N QUESTION SOLD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO- OWNERS WERE NOT REMAINED AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD . PR. CIT THUS, NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED SALE DEEDS MADE WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE I TO AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ON DATED 30/01/2014, THERE FORE, IT WAS 5 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA CANCELLED WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSME NT TO EXAMINE THE TAXABILITY OF THE ABOVE SALE PROCEEDS. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO NOTICES ISSUED BY AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND REPLIES FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT LAND IN QUESTION IS AGR ICULTURAL LAND AND IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COP IES OF THE SALE DEED AND OTHER REVENUE RECORDS BEFORE AO WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY AO AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. COPY OF ONE OF THE SALE DEED IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH IT IS MENT IONED THAT LAND THEREBY SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL NOTIF IED AREA OF UTTARANCHAL IS BEING PURCHASED FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PU RPOSES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PR ODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE AO TO EXPLAIN LAND IN QUESTION WAS AWAY FROM 8 KMS FROM MUNICIPALITY/CANTONMENT AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW AND IN CASE THE PR. CIT DOES NOT AGRE E WITH THE SAME, SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN SUP PORT OF THIS SUBMISSION, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JU DGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KWALITY STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPLEX 395 ITR 1 AND JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. 332 ITR 167. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD B ENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. T. URMILA VS. ITO 57 SOT 90 IN WHICH I T WAS HELD AS UNDER: 6 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA IT: WHERE HYDERABAD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT Y HAD BEEN CONSTITUTED UNDER PROVISIONS OF ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN AREAS (DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1975 AS A SPECIAL AR EA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY STATE GOVERNMENT, IT CANNO T BE TREATED AS A MUNICIPALITY FOR PURPOSES OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(14). 5.1 HE HAS REFERRED TO PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHI CH IS ORDER SHEET FOR AY 2006-07 OF THE AO. ON 06/01/2014 THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE LANDS SOLD ARE COVE RED UNDER AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO EXPLAIN SALE PROCEEDS. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY ON 20/01/2014 AND THE AO PASSED THE ORDER ON 30/01/2014, THEREFOR E, THE AO EXAMINED ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER SHEET FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED AT PAGE 80 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE H AS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT IS LIABLE T O BE SET ASIDE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED O RDER AND SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION 2 HAS BEEN INSERTED IN S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. AC CORDING TO WHICH IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAK ING QUERIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AO WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SALE DEEDS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME. NO DETAILS OR FACTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, LD. P R. CIT CORRECTLY CANCEL THE SAME AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO AO FOR PAS SING THE ORDER 7 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA AFRESH. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE AO DID NOT MAK E ANY ENQUIRY WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT AND ACCEPTED THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINATION, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, LD . DR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. DENIEL MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (APPEAL NO. 2396 /2017) DATED 29.11.2017 (SC); 2. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. VS. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 22 8 (DEL.); 3. SURYA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. PCIT (ITA NO. 2158/DEL/2017); 4. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 5. RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P) LTD. VS. PCIT 240 TAXMAN 306 (CALCUTTA); 6. RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P) LTD. VS. PCIT 245 TAXMAN 127 (SC) 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI VS. AMITABH BACHA N CIVIL APPEAL 5009 OF 2016 DATED 11.05.2016 (SC). 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER ADMITT ED THAT THE AO IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS MADE AN ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REFER RED TO ONE OF THE SALE DEED IN QUESTION, PB 38 IN WHICH IT IS SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED THAT THE LAND SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIA L NOTIFIED AREA OF UTTARANCHAL IS BEING PURCHASED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPO SES. THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPLICATION TO PURCHASE THE SAID LAND. TH E LD. PR. CIT WHILE EXAMINING THE SALE DEEDS IN QUESTION FOUND TH AT LANDS IN 8 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA QUESTION WERE SOLD IN PIECE MEAL TO DIFFERENT PURCHASERS AND M/S CITY DEVELOPERS HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE SALE MADE. LANDS WERE SOLD IN SQ. MTRS. THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. PCIT ALSO FOUND THAT THE LAN D SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL NOTIFIED AREA OF UTT ARANCHAL AND HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. TH ESE FACTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REFERRED TO ORDER SHEET OF THE AO PB 7 FOR AY 2006-07 IN WHICH THE AO VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 06.01.2014 R EQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE LAND SOLD ARE COVERED U NDER AGRICULTURAL LAND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.01.2 014. ON 20.01.2014 ASSESSEE FILED REPLY WHICH IS ACCEPTED A S IT IS AND AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.01.2014. THE AO IN THE ORDER SHEET AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT ME NTION AS TO HOW THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND PART ICULARLY WHEN IN THE SALE DEED IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE LAND SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL NOTIFIED AREA OF UTT ARANCHAL AND THE LAND IS PURCHASED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. THE LAN DS FALLING IN INDUSTRIAL NOTIFIED AREA COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS, THE AO DID NOT ENQUIRE OR EXAMINE INTO THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE REFERR ED SALE DEEDS. THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE AS TO UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANC ES AND HOW THE LAND REMAINED AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE EXPLANATI ON 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS INSERTED INTO THE ACT W.E.F. 01.0 6.2015 READS AS UNDER: 9 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION , IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR A S IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, - A) THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; B) THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM; C) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD U/S 119; OR D) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY DECISION WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON. 9. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IS APPLICATION TO ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BECAUSE THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE PR. CIT ON 31/12/2015. ACCORDING TO THIS EXPLANATION THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND THAT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT ENQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THOUGH THE AO ASKED FOR THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AO NEVER MADE ANY ENQUIRY OR VERIF ICATION OF SUCH A CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PASSING ANY ORDER THEREON AND WITHOUT ENQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR 10 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE AO HAS TAKEN ONE OF T HE POSSIBLE VIEW, THEREFORE, PR. CIT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAK E A DIFFERENT VIEW. HOWEVER, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE CL EARLY SHOW THAT AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY VIEW ON THE MATTER IN ISS UE ABOUT TAXABILITY OF SALE PROCEEDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TAKING THE AO ON E OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW INTO THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS REL IED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT A O AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER IN ISSUE I.E. ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SALE PROCEEDS ON THE ABOVE REFERRED SALE DEEDS HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A). THIS FACT WOULD STRENGTHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT TH AT AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, LD. PR. C IT CORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE CONFIRM THE SA ME AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1214/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08) : 11. THE ISSUE IS SAME IN THIS APPEAL AS IS CONSIDER ED IN AY 2006- 07. FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISIONS FOR AY 200 6-07 (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.03.2019 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 19/03/2019 25/03/19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22/03/19 25/03/19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/PS 27/03 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 27/03 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 27/03 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 27/03 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27/0 3 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 12 ITA NOS. 1213 & 1214/DEL/2016 DOLLY BATRA