M/s. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1340/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4271 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 37; 6; 132; 144; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1340/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 M/S CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. 12, RING ROAD, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCC0071E) VS. DCIT, CC-12, NEW DELHI ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDESH GARG, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EMAN ATING FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIR MED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,03,50,000/- AS DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM ON PROPERTIES ILLEGA LLY, THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE FOR ADDITION, MODIFICA TION, DELETION, ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFOR E THE HEARING OF APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSES HAS ALSO FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ASSESSING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT SATISFYING THE SUBSTAN TIVE AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 153C OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL C IT, RANGE-III, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO. ADDL. CIT(CR)-III/2010-11/816 DATED 27.12.2010. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE NOT BASED ON THE INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) IN RAJDARBAR GROUP OF CASES O N 31.07.2008. DURING SEARCH OPERATION CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED WHIC H BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TRANSFERRED TO CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI U/S. 127 OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 BY THE ORDERS OF 3 LD. CIT(CENTRAL)-I, DELHI. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S . 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 23.7.2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, REQUI RING IT TO FILE THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BUT THE SAME RETURNED AS UN- SERVED. FRESH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 2.8. 2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE COMPANY AT THE NEW ADDRESS SUPPLIED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, REQUIRING IT TO FILE THE RETURN FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.9.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 30,64 ,710/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THE SAME AS THAT O F E-FILED U/S. 139 OF THE ACT ON 30.9.2009. NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.9.2 010 REQUIRING IT TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.10.2010, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEA RING TO FILE THE NECESSARY DETAILS. IN THE EVENT OF NON-COOPERATION AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE LIMITATION IN THE MATTER, NOTICE U/S. 144 OF TH E ACT DATED 06.12.2010 WAS ISSUED, GIVING THE ASSESSEE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN RESPON SE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECO RDS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR, T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,03,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIU M ON PROPERTIES. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE ABOVE EXPENSE AN D TO JUSTIFY THE SAME U/S. 37 OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE THEREOF, THE AS SESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED REPLY DATED 23.12.2010 STATING THEREIN T HAT THE AMOUNT WAS 4 INCURRED AS FINE IN LIEU OF BREACH OF PERFORMANCE O F THE AGREEMENT. BUT AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND TRAD ING OF SHARES. IT WAS NOTED THAT IN REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS S TATED THAT IT PURCHASED 10 NOS. OF PLOTS IN THE KARNAL RESIDENTIAL TOWNSHIP PROJECT OF M/S TRUE ZONE BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. AND FURTHER ENTERED INTO A AGREEMENT WITH M/S RATAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. TO SELL THE SAME AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE TERMS WERE DECIDED IN THE CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRA CT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF ANY AGREEMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED WITH THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES AND FAILED TO JUSTIFY TH E EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF PLO T. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT ALL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITUR E AND THE MAIN REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEE N INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND IT SHOU LD NOT BE OF CAPITAL NATURE. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS B USINESS EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS . 1,34,14,710/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACC OUNT OF PREMIUM OF PROPERTIES VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-III, NEW DELHI. 5 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27. 12.2010, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.12.2013 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESEEE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ARE ON THE AS SUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.153C OF THE I.T. ACT BESIDES THE SCOPE OF ASSES SMENT U/S.153/153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE-III, NEW DELH I VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO. ADDL. CIT(CR)-III/2010-11/816 DATED 27.12.2010. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ADDITIONA L GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH ARE LEGAL IN NATURE OR WHICH RAISES QUESTION OF LAW OR WHICH INVOLVE INTERPRETATION OF CIRCULAR /NOTIFICATION ETC. CAN B E TAKEN UP FIRST TIME AT ANY LEVEL OF ADJUDICATION. EVEN THOSE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS WHICH ARE BASED ON FRESH EVIDENCES ARE ALSO NORMALLY ADMITTED IF TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE FOUND ADMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COR PORATION LIMITED (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 8. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED T HAT AO OSTENSIBLY PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH SHOULD HA VE BEEN PASSED U/S. 6 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS ARGUMENT TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S NATURAL PRODUCT BIO TECH LTD.; ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S GLOB AL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD. ITAT, DELHI ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S GLOBAL H ERITAGE VENTURE LTD AND RELIED UPON THE SAME. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE CASES OF M/S NATURAL PRODUCT BIO TECH LTD. & M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTUR E LTD., THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE ORDER FOR THE YEA R OF SEARCH AS ORDER PASSED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENT RAISED THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE IN ITS APPEALS BEFORE THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN BOTH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES THAT THE ORDER FOR A Y 2009-10 WAS NOT EVEN PASSED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT SO THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL WAS ERRONEOUS THEREFORE, NEEDED TO BE SET ASIDE. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THIS DIRECT PRECEDENT IN THE ASSESSEE GROUP ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL THOUGH OSTENSIBLY SIM ILARLY STATED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSID ERED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND QUASHED. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT(DR) STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. THIS STATEMENT IS A GAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN PASSED U /S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THIS FACT AND MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMEN T UNDER THE ACT TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. IN FACT, IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO IS 7 TAKING THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEE N FRAMED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE, T HE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND IS AGAINST THE FACTUAL POSITION ON THE RECOR D. AS REGARDS SECOND ADDITION GROUND IS CONCERNED, LD. CIT(DR) HAS STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE BEING RAISED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WH ICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROVISIONS O F THE ACT IS VERY CLEAR IN THIS REGARD WHICH SAYS THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 153C CA NNOT BE ISSUED UNLESS ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY AND OTHER VALUABLE ARTI CLES OR THINGS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTA NT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO SEIZED MATERIAL IS THERE AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHE R STATED THAT ON THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITION GROUND, THE ONUS IS ON TH E ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS SUCH AS BASIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 153C TO PROVE THAT IN THIS CASE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON U/S. 153C WAS BAD IN LAW. LASTLY SHE STATED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE AO HAS MADE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT THE REFERENCE OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSE IS CH ALLENGING THE JURISDICTION ON THE SAME GROUND THAT JURISDICTION U /S. 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED, WHICH IS NOT THE FACTS ON RECORD AND ON THIS GROUND ITSELF, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE DESERVE TO BE REJECTED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED REC ORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AT THE THRESHOLD, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 8 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF TH E ITAT AS WELL AS DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NTPC LIMITED 229 ITR 383 (SUPRA), THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS AN D DO NOT REQUIRE FRESH FACTS WHICH IS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ADMIT THE AFORESAID ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAW OF NTPC L IMITED (SUPRA) AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 FIRS T. 10.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE QASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO OSTENSIBLY PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S. 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN VI EW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S NATURAL PRODUCT BIO TECH LTD. AND IN THE CASE OF M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VE NTURE LTD. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON EXACTLY SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VS. NATURA L PRODUCTS BIO TECH LTD. IN ITA NO. 568/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.9.2015 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ('ITAT') IN ITA NO. 3086/ DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ('A Y') 2009-10. T HE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE URGED IS WHETHER THE ITAT WAS CORRECT IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT S INCE 9 THE REQUISITES OF SECTION 153-C OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STOOD VITI ATED. 2. ON 14TH AUGUST 2015, THIS COURT PASSED AN ORDER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH R EADS AS UNDER: 3. THE POINT URGED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28TH NOVEMBER, 2014 OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 2086/DEL/2013 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF WAS FRAMED ONLY UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT AND THEREFORE THE ITAT WAS IN ERROR IN PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE THE OTHER HAND DREW THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH STATES THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANQE-ILL, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 28TH DECEMBER, 2010. HE SUBMITS. THAT THIS WAS THE PRIOR APPROVAL THAT WAS REQUIRED, IN TERMS OF SECTION 153D OF THE ACT, TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE STATES THAT HE NEEDS SOME TIME TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT. AT HIS REQUEST LIST ON 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2015.' 10 3. THE COURT IS TODAY INFORMED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION IS CORRECT. 4. THE POINT INVOLVED IN THE RECENT APPEAL STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2015 IN ITA NO. 569, 570, 571 OF 2015 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NATURAL PRODUCTS BIO TECH. LTD.). 5. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. 6. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10.2 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT AGAIN ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA VS. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD. IN ITA NO. 76 /2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.4.2017 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 1. IT IS URGED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE STAND ANSWERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 568/2015 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VS. NATURAL PRODUCTS BIO TECH. LTD.) 2. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S NATURAL PRODUCT BIO TECH LTD. AND IN THE CASE OF M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD., AS AFORESAID, WE HOLD THE IMPUGNED 11 ASSESSMENT ORDER A NULLITY AND QUASH THE SAME. IT I S MADE CLEAR THAT OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT ADJUDICATED HAVING BECOME ACA DEMIC. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05/01/2018. SD/- SD/- [T.S. KAPOOR] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 05/01/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BE NCHES 12