Balwan Singh, Kurukshetra V. ITO, W-1, Kurukshetra

ITA 1441/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4875 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # , $ % & ' ( , )* # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 1441/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI BALWAN SINGH S/O SHRI KEHAR SINGH, R/O H.NO. 2121/5, VASHISHT COLONY, MOHAN NAGAR, KURUKSHETRA. VS THE ITO, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA. ./ PAN /TAN NO: AYBPS9443A / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.M.MONGA & SHRI ROHIT KAURA, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI HEMANT GUPTA, SR.DR # $ %/ DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2019 &'() %/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.08.2019 )-/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2018 OF CI T(A), KARNAL PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ASSA ILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN REOPENING U/S 147/148, WHICH REOPENING/REASSESSMENT /NOTICE IS ITSELF BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS, INCORRECT FACTS AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AFFIDAVITS, AND OTHER EVIDENCE S ON RECORD, LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, DULY SUBMITTED IN APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS BY SIMPLY REFERRING TO SOME PARAS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AND BY COPY PASTE OF THE REMAND REPORT. ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 10 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE UPHOLDI NG THE ORDERS OF THE AO IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY RELYING ON THE DUMB D OCUMENTS/ INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCES I.E. PHOTOCOPIES OF SOME ALL EGED 'BAYANAS' WITHOUT EVEN THE SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED 'BAYANAS' PARTICULARLY WHEN EV EN BOTH THE ALLEGED PARTIES TO BOGUS/FORGED BAYANAS ALSO DENIES ANY AGR EEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THEM. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF 18 KANAL LAND AT V ILLAGE AAHAR. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF . 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO GROUND NO. 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT TH E LEGAL ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED FIRST AS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2.1 ALTERNATELY IT WAS SUBMITTED INVITING ATTENTION TO GROUND NO. 3 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER EVEN OTHERWISE CANNOT STA ND IN THE EYES OF LAW AS IT IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 3. ADDRESSING THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND, THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PA SSED WHICH IS ADDRESSED IN GROUND NO. 2 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IS BEING RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFOR E THE ITAT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS N O FINDING ON THE SAID ISSUE. IT WAS CONCEDED ON QUERY THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED A FRESH GROUND WHICH THOUGH IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HOWEVER, BEING A LEGAL GROUND, CAN BE RAISED. IT ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 10 WAS AGREED THAT THE SAID GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE GROUND BEI NG A LEGAL GROUND MAY BE ADMITTED. 4. THE LD. SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE OBJECTS TO THE RAISING OF THE GROUND WITHOUT A PROPER APPLICATION AS THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE CIT(A) AS NO SUCH GRO UND WAS RAISED BEFORE HIM. IN THE FACE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. AR IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT IT IS A LEGAL GROUND, HENCE HE AGREED THAT IT MAY BE ADMITTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FIND ING OF THE CIT(A), IT WAS HIS REQUEST THAT THE MATTER MAY BE R EMANDED FOR ADDRESSING WHATEVER SHORTCOMING THE LD. AR/ASSESSEE WANTS TO ARGUE AS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION IN THE OR DER, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS AS PECT. 5. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTION WHEREIN ULTIMATELY ON THE ADMISSION OF THE GROUND, THERE WA S NO OBJECTION, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS FULLY COVERE D IN HIS FAVOUR BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SHRI MANPREET SINGH BHAMRA ITA NO. 495/CHD/2014 DATED 10 .12.2015. INVITING ATTENTION TO COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IT WAS ARGUED THAT RE- OPENING HAD BEEN DIRECTED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SPECIFIC YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS FOUND TO BE AN INCORRECT FACT BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER WAS QUASHED ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 10 INVITING ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECOR DED BY THE AO AVAILABLE AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 15 IT WAS HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT SIMILAR REASONING IS AVAILABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SAID REASONIN G IS COMPARED WITH PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE AO TA KES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1,69,320/-+ AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000/- BY WAY OF FILI NG OF RETURN ON 17.10.2012, THE PRINCIPLE INVOKED BY THE ITAT IN THE SAID DECISION, IT WAS SUBMITTED, BECOMES FULLY APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. 6. THE LD. SR.DR MAINTAINING HIS REQUEST SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AR IS INCORRECT IN ARGUING THAT RE-OPENING HAS BEEN DI RECTED PURELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED. READI NG FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE RE -OPENING HAS BEEN NECESSITATED PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND PAID FOR THE SAME IN CASH BY AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS. 75,85,000/-. T HUS EVEN IF THE RETURN HAD BEEN PERUSED, THE FACT OF AVAILABLE CASH TO THE EXTENT NOTICED NECESSITATED AND NEEDED EXAMINATION AND CON SIDERATION AS THE MEAGER RETURNED INCOME SUGGESTED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE REASON TO BELIEVE, IT WAS ARGUED IS SUFFICIENT AND COMPLETE AND THUS THE PRINCIPLE INVOKED AS LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION, IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE. ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 10 HOWEVER, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE BE REMANDE D AS DUE TO NON-DISCUSSION ON THE SAME BY THE CIT(A), THE DEPAR TMENT IS HANDICAPPED ON FACTS. 7. THE LD. AR IN REPLY REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN HAD BEEN FILED. ON QUERY HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNING INCO ME FROM THE STATED ACTIVITY OF SUPPLY OF MID-DAY MEALS TO SCHOO LS ETC. WE FIND THAT REFERENCE TO THE SAID FACT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN I N THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AND HAS BEEN RETURNING INCOME FROM THE STA TED ACTIVITY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH FACT ALSO IS NOT COMING FROM THE ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 17.10.2012 AND AS PER REASONS RECORDED AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE AO HAS NOTED THE FOLLOWING FACTS : REASONS FOR BELIEF UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, RECORDED FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: 1. ASSESSEE'S NAME & ADDRESS: SHRI BALWAN S INGH, HOUSE NO. 2121/5, VASHISTH COLONY, MOHAN NAGAR, KURUKSHETRA. - 2. PAN: - AYBPS 9443A. 3. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 4. STATUS INDIVIDUAL. ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 10 (ALL THE SECTIONS/SUB-SECTIONS AND CLAUSES OF THE A CT MENTIONED HEREINAFTER REFER TO THOSE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE) 1. AS PER THE INFORMATION ON RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND PAID THE CASH AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO- RS.75,85,000/- DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2011- 12 AS ADVANCES AGAINST THE PURCHASE PRICE AGGREGATI NG TO RS. 1,27,41,347/- FOR THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13. 2. I, THEREFORE, HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE AS SESSEE'S INCOME OF RS.75,85,000/-, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN ME ANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS ISSUED FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. SD/- (MAYA RAM) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 8.1 WE FIND ON A READING FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANPREET SINGH BHAMRA (CITED SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. AR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WERE MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEF ORE THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH : 'SH. MANPREET SINGH SON OF SH. HARDEEP SINGH BHAMRA HAS MADE VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN BANK DURING THE FINANCIAL YE AR 1 999-2000 AND HAS NOT FILED ANY INCOME TAX RETURN AND SOURCE OF IN THESE BANKS DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE ABOVE SAID CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. I, THEREFORE, HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INVESTMENT OF ABOVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' 8.1.1 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H CONCLUDED THE ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT MAINLY ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF IN COME FOR ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH FACT ITSELF IS I NCORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1999-2000 ON 08.03.2000. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING O F THE RETURN IS FILED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SINCE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER RECORDED INCORRECT AND NON-EXISTING REASONS FOR RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE MATTER. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATLAS CYCLE INDUS TRIES 180 ITR 319. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL (SUPRA). NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJNEESH BANSAL (SUPRA). WE MAY ALSO NOTE HER E THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND REASONS RECORDED FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.0 2.2014 QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHICH, NO DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, ON THIS REASON ALSO, ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 8.2 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. SR.D R MAINTAINING HIS STAND FOR A REMAND OF THE ISSUE HAS TRIED TO DR AW A MATERIAL DISTINCTION ON FACTS AS AVAILABLE IN THE REASONS RE CORDED IN THE PRESENT CASE VIS--VIS THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF MANPREET SINGH BHAMRA. THE LD. SR.DR HAS TRIED TO MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE TRIGGERING FACTOR WAS THE PAYMENTS IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 75 LAKH ODD FOR PURCHASE OF PROPER TY. HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO ARGUE THAT A PERUSAL OF THE RETURN WOU LD NOT HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE. THUS, MAINTAINING THAT THE MA TERIAL FACT WAS PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND NOT FILING OF THE RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, NOTING THE OBJE CTIONS OF THE SR.DR AND IN THE INABILITY OF THE LD. AR WHO WAS AL SO NOT IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS THE RELEVANT FACTS NAMELY WHETH ER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE OVER THE YEA RS AND BE SAID TO EXPECT THAT THE STATED AMOUNTS NOTICED IN THE TR ANSACTION ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 8 OF 10 COULD READILY BE SAID TO BE AVAILABLE TO HIM. THUS , IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION ON FACTS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE SAID GROUND BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY REMAND REPORTS, IF ANY ON THE P AST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, IF NEED BE AND OF COURSE PROVIDING T HE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. ADDRESSING GROUND NO.3, THE LD. AR INVITING ATTE NTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS EXTRAC TED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PAGES 1 TO 10 OF HIS ORDER. THEREAFTER, DISCUSSING THE FACTS AS AVAILABLE IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EXTRACTING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AT PAGES UPTO 12, THE ISSUE WAS CONCLUDED BY THE CIT(A)AT PAGE 13 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 11. IT IS, THEREFORE, DEAR THAT THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE A.O . 2 NOT BEEN REBUTTED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE TIES DENYING ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON . FOR EXAMPLE-, FACT THAT SIGNATURE OF ONE OF THE PER SONS, SH. MANOJ KUMAR, RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. AN D ALSO IN ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS MATCH . MOREOVER , THE WITNESS IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, SH. RAJESH KUMAR CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION BEFORE THE A .O. (PARA 6.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED AND LOGICAL FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER, I CONFIRM THE SAID ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,08,80,250 /-. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 9.1 REFERRING TO THE SAME IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION T HAT NOT ONLY THE FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE AFORESAID FINDING A RE INCORRECT, EVEN OTHERWISE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON THE CLAIMS ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 9 OF 10 REMAIN UNADDRESSED AND THUS THE ORDER BEING A NON-S PEAKING ORDER MAY BE REMANDED BACK FOR A DISCUSSION AND DEC ISION ON MERITS OF THE FACTS, EVIDENCES AND RECORD. 10. THE LD. SR.DR ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDING CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AGREED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE FIND OURSELVES CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT THE ORDE R CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SPEAKING ORDER IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER BEEN DISCUSSED NOR ANY REASONS HAVE BEE N GIVEN WHY IT HAS TO BE DISCARDED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCU SSION ON THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE CIT(A), WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO CONCLUDE WHETHE R THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT ON FACTS OR NOT . ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. THE CIT(A) SHALL FIRST DECIDE THE JURISDICTIONA L CHALLENGE POSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER IN CASE THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT SUCCEED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, HE SHALL P ROCEED TO ITA 1441/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 10 OF 10 DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.08. 2019. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & ' ( ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) )* #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER