M/s Banco Builders, New Delhi V. ACIT (OSD), Dehradun

ITA 149/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 234B; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRES IDENT AND BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRES IDENT AND BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRES IDENT AND BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRES IDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.149/DEL./2011 ITA NO.149/DEL./2011 ITA NO.149/DEL./2011 ITA NO.149/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000- -- -01) 01) 01) 01) BANCO BUILDERS, BANCO BUILDERS, BANCO BUILDERS, BANCO BUILDERS, VS. VS. VS. VS. ACIT(OSD), ACIT(OSD), ACIT(OSD), ACIT(OSD), C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS. C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS. C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS. C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. C CC C- -- -763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI- -- -110025. 110025. 110025. 110025. (PAN/GIR NO.AAFFB4355E) (PAN/GIR NO.AAFFB4355E) (PAN/GIR NO.AAFFB4355E) (PAN/GIR NO.AAFFB4355E) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER A.D. JAIN PER A.D. JAIN PER A.D. JAIN PER A.D. JAIN: JM : JM: JM : JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2006 IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND ILLEGAL ON VARIOUS FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING. (A) THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO ENABLE THE AO TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. (B) THE AO HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT AND HAD RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 28.11.05 OF THE LD.DR.CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.N. BANSAL. MOREOVER, THE CIT(A) HAD SANCTIONED THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 2 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF `15,0 0,000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF `15,00,000 BEING TREATED AS REVEN UE RECEIPT HAVING ALLEGEDLY BEEN REC4IVED BY THE APPEL LANT FROM SHRI RAJIV KAUSHIK AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY A T 9A, SURVEY ROAD, DEHRADUN. VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS ARE EITHER FACTUALLY INCORREC T OR ARE LEGALLY UNTENABLE. 3. THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND ANY RATE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTERE ST AS LEVIED IS VERY EXCESSIVE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ELEVEN P ARTNERS WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT GWALIOR AND A B RANCH OFFICE AT DEHRADUN. IT IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND WO RKS CONTRACT. KAILASH NARAIN BANSAL, HUF IS ONE OF ITS PARTNERS. ON 1 5.1.02, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF GITA BANSAL. IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE SHRI RAJIV KAUSHIK, THE NON-RESIDENT INDIAN HAD MADE A GIFT OF `50 LAKHS TO SHRI K.N. BANSAL AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FA MILY, AS FOLLOWS: K.N. BANSAL - `3,00,000 GITA BANSAL, - `3,00,000 VARSHA BANSAL, - `3,00,000 KAPIL BANSAL - `3,00,000 `15,00,000 3. SHRI RAJ IV KAUSHIK WAS TO HAVE BEEN FOUND TO PURCHASE A PLOT O F LAND THROUGH THREE SEPARATE SALE DEEDS. ONE OF THESE SA LE DEEDS WAS FROM INDU SIAL. INDU SIAL HAD EXECUTED THE SALE DEE D DIRECTLY TO RAJIV KAUSHIK OF M/S BANCO BUILDERS, THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH SHRI K.N. BANSAL BEING NOMINEE. INDU SIAL HAD HERSELF EXECUTED THE SA LE DEED AND NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF K.N. BANSAL, THOUGH RAJIV KAUSHIK IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 16.1.02 STATED THAT K.N. BANSAL WAS THE ATTORNEY HOLDER OF INDU SIAL. K.N. BANSAL, IS A PART NER OF THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 3 IN HIS CAPACITY AS KARTA OF HIS HUF. THE TRANSACTION WITH INDU SIAL WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF `15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI K.N. BANSAL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ON A SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. ADDITIONS OF `3 LAKHS EACH WERE ALSO MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AFORESAID STATED FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS OF K.N. BANSAL ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS. 5. IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL, THE CIT(A), VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.05, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO (COPY AT PAGES 88-111 OF THE ASSESSEES PA PER BOOK, APB FOR SHORT) DELETED THE ADDITION OF `15 LAKHS AN D DIRECTED THE INCLUSION OF THE INCOME OF `15 LAKHS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM . WHILE DOING SO, IT WAS OBSERVED, INTER ALIA, THAT :- 8.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR VERY CAREFULLY. I HAVE ALSO GONE T HROUGH THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI RAJIV KAUSHIK ON 16.01.02. THERE WA S A LAND AT 9-A, OLD SURVEY ROAD, DEHRADUN ORIGINALLY IN THE NA ME OF MRS. SIAL FOR WHICH M/S BANCO BUILDERS, ADVANCED RS. 80,000 TO MRS. SIAL ON 21.01.2000 WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT IT WILL GE T THE PLOT SOLD WITHIN 3 MONTHS. SHRI K.N. BANSAL, PARTNER, INSER TED AN ADVERTISEMENT IN A LOCAL PAPER FOR SELLING THE PLOT. SHRI RAJIV KAUSHIK STAYING AT 18-A, OLD SURVEY ROAD, DEHRADUN WA S KEEN TO BUY THIS LAND AS IT WAS NEXT TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY O F SHRI RAJIV KAUSHIK. (HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THROUGH ADVERTISEMENT AND CONTACTED SHRI K.N. BANSAL. MR. BAN SAL RECEIVED NOMINATION CHARGES ON BEHALF OF M./S BANCO B UILDERS AND TITLE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM MRS. SIAL TO M R. KAUSHIK ON 14.03.2000. ON 14.03.2000 ITSELF, APPELLANT GOT G IFTS OF RS. 15,00,000/- IN HIS NAME AND IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,00,000/- WAS THEREFORE, GIVEN BY SHRI RAJIV KA USHIK TO SHRI K.N. BANSAL IN THE FORM OF GIFT. M/S BANCO BUILDERS CR EDITED ON 13.03.2000 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A SUM OF RS. 34,000 AS NOMINATION CHARGES. I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 4 THERE WERE TWO OTHER REMAINING PLOTS OF MRS. INDU SIA L AT THE SAME PLACE I.E. 41/32/2, OLD SURVEY ROAD, DEHRADUN. THE FIRM TRIED TO SELL THESE PLOTS BUT DID NOT SUCCEED AND ENTIR E AMOUNT OF RS. 80,000/- GIVEN AS ADVANCE TO MRS. SIAL WAS RETURNED ON 30.08.2000 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 397231 DATED 30.08.2000 OF ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. HOWEVER, SINCE M/S BANCO BUILDERS HAD MADE INITIAL PAY MENT OF RS. 80,000/-, THE INCOME OF RS. 15,00,000/- ACCRUED T O M/S BANCO BUILDERS AS A NOMINEE, CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE D EED AND NOT TO SHRI K.N. BANSAL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. A DDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED.. THE AO, HOWEVE R, IS DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION IN THE HANDS OF M/S BANCO BUILDERS TO B RING-TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 15,00,000/- FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ) 6. THEREAFTER, WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE C IT(A) IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO I SSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEES FIRM ON 25.4.06, MAKING, THEREUPON, ADDITION OF `15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 7. VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.10, THE CIT( A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CHALLENGIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL STANDS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.09 (COPY AT APB 112-119 IN I.T. A. NOS.586 & 434/DEL./0 6), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01; THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS BASED ON THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL, DATE D 28.11.05 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUN AL, THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL, WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL WAS UPHELD, ALSO STANDS QUASHED; A ND THAT AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALSO DOE S NOT SURVIVE. 9. LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STAUNCHLY SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A), THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL W AS CHALLENGED I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 5 BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE SPECIFIC GROUND THAT THE VALI DITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE B EEN UPHELD; THAT IT WAS THIS CONTENTION WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED; THAT THE CIT(A)S DECISION WAS OVER RULED TO THE EXTENT THAT HE HAD UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMEN T ON THE GROUND OF ACQUIESCENCE; THAT HOWEVER, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INCOME IS ACTUALLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NOT WITH K.N. BANSAL, HAD NEITHER BEEN CHALLENGE D BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT; THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL WAS CANCELLED BY THE CIT(A); AND THAT AS SU CH, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL, REQUIRING T HE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN QUESTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SURVI VES, FORMING A VALID BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 10. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 24.11.09 (SUPRA), WHILE QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE O F K.N. BANSAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, OBSERVED, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLO WS: THE AO HAD NOT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION ON 10.10.2002. TIME AND AGAIN, IT IS HEL D BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS WELL SUPREME COURT THAT JURISDI CTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED IN AN AUTHORITY BY WAY OF A CON SENT. A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P V. DOSHI VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE J URISDICTION OF AO FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT MERELY ON THE ASKING OF ANY INDIVIDUAL. IF J URISDICTION AND AUTHORITY CAN BE FASTENED WITH THE CONSENT OF ANY PA RTY THEN THERE WILL BE A CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LA W. ANY ASSESSEE WOULD APPROACH THE AO OF HIS CHOICE AND ASK TO P ASS ASSTT. ORDER IN HIS CASE. THE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED IN THE ACT IN THIS RESPECT ARE OF WIDE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND THEY COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE MERELY FOR THE PRIVATE BENEFIT OF THE INDIVID UAL, BASED ON CONSENT. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR IS CONC ERNED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AN ASSESSEE MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY OR HE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF T HE FILING I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 6 OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN HE WOULD ALWAYS BE SUBJECT T O ONE JURISDICTION. LD. DR WANTS TO PERSUADE US TO FOREGO THE RESIDENCE/ TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION FOR THE ASSESSEE AT GWALIOR AND REPLACE THE JURISDICTION IN DEHRADUN BECAUSE HE HAS ONE MORE RESIDE NCE AT DEHRADUN. BUT WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE THE VIEW POINT OF L D. DR BECAUSE IF THE PERSON IS REGULARLY ASSESSED AT ONE PLACE F ROM THE LAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS THEN BY VIRTUE OF HAVING HIS O NE OR MORE RESIDENCE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF OTHER AO. WE COULD HAV E UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT POINTED O UT THIS FACT AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE TO THE AO. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVENTED THE AO TO TRANSFER THIS MATERIAL TO TH E ITO AT GWALIOR. WE ALSO AGAIN FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE AO AT DEHRADUN AFTER 10.10.2 002, WHEN JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIM. THUS ON THE D ATE WHEN THIS NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO A T DEHRADUN HE WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND THIS NOTICE IS WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION. CONSEQUENTLY ASSTT ORDER FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASH THE ASSTT, ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IT WAS IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF `15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF K.N. BANSAL, DIRECTED THE AO TO INCLUDE THE INCOME OF `15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM. 12. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IN TH E CASE OF K.N. BANSAL, STANDS QUASHED BY THE ITAT, THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL STANDS IN TOTO MERGED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE VERY RAISON-D-ETRE OF THE ASSE SSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM NO LONGER SURVIVES. THE REASONING OF THE CI T(A) IS THAT THE CHALLENGE IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL WAS ON A SPECI FIC GROUND, I.E., THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL , THAT IT WAS THIS CHALLENGE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL; AN D THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME WAS ACTUALLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM RATHER THAN WITH K.N. BANSAL, WAS NEITHER CHALLENGED BEFORE CIT(A) NOR ADJUDICATED UPON BY TH E TRIBUNAL. THIS REASONING, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS NOT PROPER IN ASMUCH AS THE CIT(A), WHILE MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS, HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 7 ACCOUNT THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE K.N. BANSAL STANDS QUASHED, THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER QUA SUCH ASSESSMENT ALSO STANDS QUASHED AND THIS QUASHMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN IN PIECEMEAL. IT HAS TO GO TO IN ITS TOTALITY. IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT WHEREAS PART OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER STANDS QUASHED, THE DIRECTIO N CONTAINED THEREIN SURVIVES. THERE IS NO SUCH ANNULMENT KNOWN TO LAW. ANNULMENT IS AB INITIO AD-INFINITUM. THE WHOLE OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL STANDS OBLITERATED BY THE TRIBU NAL ORDER. NO PART THEREOF REMAINS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DIRECTION CO NTAINED THEREIN, ASKING THE AO TO TAKE ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF ` 15 LAKHS ALSO STANDS NULLIFIED. THE CIT(A), IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL HAS NOT LAID BARE THE BASIS FOR HOL DING SUCH DIRECTIONS TO HAVE SURVIVED. NO DECISION SUPPORTING T HIS VIEW HAS EITHER BEEN RELIED ON IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, OR CIT ED BEFORE HIM. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE ACCEPTED AND WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF K.N. BANSAL STANDS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 24.11.09, THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON SUCH ASSESSMENT AL SO STANDS QUASHED AND THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION CONTAINED THERE IN FOR THE AO TO BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF `15 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALSO DOES NOT SURVIVE. 14. THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IS BASED ON THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN K.N. BANSALS CASE , IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN T HE ASSESSEES CASE: THE CIT(A)-I, DEHRADUN VIDE PARA 8.2 OF HIS ORDER D ATED 28.11.2005 IN APPEAL NO.017/DDN/03-04 IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.N. BANSAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF `15,00,000 SHOWN IN THE SHAPE OF GIFT OF `3 ,00,000 EACH I THE NAME OF SH. K.N. BANSAL AND HIS FOUR FAMIL Y MEMBERS IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND ACCORDING LY IT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION IN TE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE FIRM. I.T.A. NO.149/DEL./11 (A.Y. : 2000-01) 8 ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE FIRM ON 3.04.2006. 15. SINCE THE VERY GENESIS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM STANDS QUASHED, NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.0 6, NOR THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, PASSED ON 28.10.10, SURVIVES ANY LO NGER. 16. FOR THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO BE ALLOWED ON THIS PRELIMINARY SCORE. ORDERED ACC ORDINGLY. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 21.04.2011. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - (G.E. VEERABHADRAPP (G.E. VEERABHADRAPP (G.E. VEERABHADRAPP (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) A)A) A) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL DATED, APRIL 21, 2011. 21, 2011. 21, 2011. 21, 2011. SKB SKB SKB SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 3.CIT 3.CIT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A) 4.CIT(A)- -- -I, DEHRADUN . I, DEHRADUN . I, DEHRADUN . I, DEHRADUN . 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT AR/ITAT AR/ITAT AR/ITAT