GREEN VALLEY INFRACITY PVT. LTD., NOIDA V. ITO, WARD- 1(4), NOIDA

ITA 2110/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3762 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(2); 246A; 13; 22; 139; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2110/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S GREEN VALLEY INFRACITY PVT. LTD., NOIDA, C/O NITESH SINGH, C-190, SECTOR-49, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH -201 301 (PAN: AAFCP8389P) VS. ITO, WARD 1(4), NOIDA (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR.DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA ON 29.10.2019 IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. NIL ON 31.3.2014. LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT ACT) DATED 03.09.2014 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER QUERIES, NOTICES U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SE RVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND PRODUCE D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET & ITS SCHEDULE, P&L ACCOUNT, OTHER D ETAILS AND EXPLANATION AND THE SAME WAS TEST CHECKED. 2 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF BALANCES FROM 4 CREDITORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2012 AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,21,454/- I.E. IN RESPECT OF (I) M/S MEGICLE INDIA TOUR RS. 1,33,7 04/- (II) M/S GROMOR FOOD NURSERY RS. 2,16,600/- (III) M/S TZ ENTERPRISES RS. 1,40,000/- & (IV) M/S WING TRAVELS RS. 1,31,150/-. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, BUT COULD NOT P RODUCE SUPPORTING BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,345,750/- I.E. IN RESPECT OF ( I) NEUTRAL PUBLICATION HOME LIMITED RS. 1,34,750/- AND (II) SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION RS. 1,00,000/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GENERATOR SET AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,38,000/- AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD PLANT & MACHINERY . ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE BILL OF SUCH ADDITION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THIS ADDITION AMOUNTING TO R S. 2.38 LACS, THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER CONSI DERING ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FINA LLY COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,00,200/- BY DISALLOWING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 2 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORD ER DATED 27.03.2015. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS EARLIER O RDER DATED 27.9.2016 ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS. 4,94,001/- U/S. 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961; BY RS. 12,75,00,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND BY RS. 20,49,08002/- U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND CO MPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 33,35,52,203/- AND DIRECTED THE AO TO IS SUE THE NECESSARY DEMAND AND PENALTY NOTICE, AS PER LAW. AGGRIEVED BY THE LD. CIT(A)S EARLIER ORDER DATED 27.9.2016, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3 6272/DEL/2016, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, SET AS IDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME IN DISPUT E AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED IN TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 I.E. THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK CONT AINING PAGE 1-518 AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. THE BENCH ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN OR DER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 2.2 IN COMPLIANCE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31.5. 2018 PASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, SMC, NEW DELHI, AS AFORESAID, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 BY STATING THAT INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DETERMINED BY THIS OFFICE AT RS. 33,35,52, 203/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 29.10.2018. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA AN D FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS FILING HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHE D ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAWS AND THIS MAY BE TR EATED AS ARGUMENTS AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DECIDED ACCORD INGLY. HE ALSO STATED IN SUPPORT OF HIS WRITTEN ARGUMENTS, HE HAS ALSO FILED THE PAPER BOOK SUPPORTING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES NO. 1-518 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR NULLIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS ENHANCED THE ADDITION MAY BE CANCELLED. FOR THE SAKE OF 4 CONVENIENCE, THE SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE APPELLANT IS A CORPORATE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THE RETURNED INCOME DECLARING LOSS AT (-) 494,0011- UNDER SECTION 139 WAS FILED. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE LD. AO MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,94,204/- AND THUS ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,00,200/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL U/S 246A BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NOIDA, AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.05.2016, ISSUED U/S 251(2), READ WITH SECTION 251(1)(A), SIGNED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, REGARDING ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT, DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED BEING THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX. THE COPY OF THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS PLACED AT PAGE 508 OF PAPER BOOK. THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE COMPRISED AS UNDER :- '1. THE LD. AO HAS COMPUTED YOUR TOTAL INCOME RS. 600,200/- AND CONTESTING THAT YOU HAVE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. AD AND THE SAME IS P ENDING IS ADJUDICATION BEFORE THIS OFFICE '2.ON EXAMINING YOUR BALANCE SHEET, IT IS FOUND THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF RS. (-) 494,001, BUT RESERVE AND SURPLUS CAN'T BE NEGATIVE. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. 5 '3 YOU HAVE TAKEN AN 'UNSECURED LOANS' OF RS. 12,75,50,0001-. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS TRANSACTION. '4 YOU HAVE SHOWN 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' OF RS. 20,49,08,0021-. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT TRANSFERRED TO YOUR P&L ALC. '5 HENCE, YOU ARE THEREFORE IN PERSON OR THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE DULY AUTHORIZED REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ENHANCEMENT OF YOUR INCOME BY RS. 33,29,52,003/- (I.E. RS. 20,49,08,002/- + RS. 12,75,50,000/- + RS. 494,00/-) SHOULD NOT BE MADE. IN THIS REGARD, I AM DIRECTED TO REQUEST YOU TO FURNISH THE REPLY OF THIS NO TICE WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. SD/- (HIMANSHU SONI) INSPECTOR FOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I NOIDA 3. FOLLOWING THE AFORE-SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, THE L D CIT -A PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.09.2016 MAKING AGGREGATE ENHANCEMENT AS MENTIONED IN ABOVE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. 4. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WAS SET ASIDE B Y THE HON'BLE SMC BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI VIDE JUDGMENT DA TED 31.05.2018, IN ITA 62721DEL/2016, REMITTING THE MAT TER BACK TO THE LD. CIT -A TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RECORDS. 6 5. THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT ISSUING FRESH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT (WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN IF HE INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT IN SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL SINCE THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD SET ASIDE HIS EARLIER ORDER DATED 27.09.2016 DIRECTING TO DECIDE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE AFRESH), RESTORED HIS EARLIER ORDER WITH THE SAME ENHANCEMENT AGGREGATING TO RS. 33,29,52,003 AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018, WHICH IS NULL AN D VOID SINCE THE SAME IS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING ANY FRESH NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT UNDER SECTION 251(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT SO MADE IN THE SAID ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 6. AS YOUR HONOUR WILL KINDLY APPRECIATE FROM THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.05.2016, THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE, AS UNDER :- (I) THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REPLY THEREOF BEFORE HIM BEING THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVING NO AUTHORITY IN LAW TO MAKE ANY ENHANCEMENT IN APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS AND THUS HE ILLEGALLY ASSUMED THE FUNCTION OF CIT(A), WHICH IS BAD IRI LAW AND THUS THE SAID SHOW CAU SE NOTICE IS NULL AND VOID AB-INITIO. (II) THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED; AS NO IOTA OF ANY ENQUIRIES OR FINDINGS WERE MADE BY OFFICE OF CIT -A NOR ANY IOTA OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WARRANTING ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE AND THUS THE SAME IS ABSOLUTELY ARBITRARY, BALD, UNWARRANTED AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THUS BAD AND UNTENABLE IN LAW, BECAUSE ISSUE OF 7 SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT MERELY A RITUAL, BUT IT IS VERY VITAL AND ESSENTIAL BEING PRE-REQUISITE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE SUCH IMPUGNED AND PURPORTED ENHANCEMENT IS WITHOUT LAWFUL ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (III) THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN MOST MECHANICAL MANNER SEEMINGLY WITH A PREJUDICED VIEW, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, WHICH ARE FUL LY VERIFIABLE AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO AFTER MAKING AL L ENQUIRIES AND THUS ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68, PROVING THE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS IN RELATION TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND THUS NO IOTA OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED TO WARRANT ISSUE OF ANY SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. (IV) THE OTHER BASIS OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ARE ALSO ABSOLUTELY UNWARRANTED AND PREPOSTEROUS AS THE SAME WERE WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED; AS THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SAYS THAT 'THE BALANCE OF RESERVE AND SURPLUS CAN'T BE NEGATIVE' AND THAT WHY THE BALANCE OF 'WORK-IN-PROGR ESS' SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; WH ICH HAVING NO BASIS OR RELEVANCY FOR ANY ENHANCEMENT AS PER LAW. ' 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL REQUISITE AND COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORDS AND HAS FULLY DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY FURNISHING ALL REQUISITE DOCUMENTS 8 BEFORE THE LD. AO, WHICH ARE NEITHER DISPROVED NOR CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. CIT -A MADE FOLLOWING ENHANCEMENT IN HIS ORDER, FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HEREBY SUBMITS AS UNDER :- (I) RS. (-) 4,94,001 MADE U/S 69C RELATING TO NEGATIV E BALANCE OF RESERVE & SURPLUS AS PER THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET PARA 23 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING A T PAGE 6 THEREOF. THE VERY PREMISE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BALANCE I N RESERVE AND SURPLUS CANNOT BE IN NEGATIVE, IS PREPOSTERO US AND FRIVOLOUS; BECAUSE THE NEGATIVE RESERVES AND SURPLUS REPRESENTS LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE FULLY EVIDENT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS FROM THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DECLARING-THE SAID LOSS, WHICH WAS EXAMINED, VERIFIED AND ACCEPTED BY THE L D. AO AND WAS MADE A BASIS OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE AFORE-SAID NEGATIVE BALANCE OF RESERVE AND SURPLUS, REPRESENTING LOSS FOR THE YEAR, STOOD FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS APPEARING IN AUDITED BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD 'SHAREHOLDERS' FUNDS' AND THUS THE SOURCE THEREOF IS FULLY VERIFIABLE AND EXPLAINED AND THE SAME WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY THE LD. AO AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH AND THUS THE SAME DOES NOT WARRANT TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS/ENHANCEMENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, SECTION 9 69C HAS ANY APPLICABILITY TO THE SAME AND THEREFORE T HE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (II) RS. 12,75,00,000 MADE U/S 68 RELATING TO 'SHORT TERM BORROWINGS' AS APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET: - PARA 24 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING A T PAGE 7 THEREOF THE LD. CIT -A MADE THE AFORE--SAID IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT IN MOST ARBITRARY AND MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT ANY BASIS, GROSSLY IGNORING ALL REQUISITE AND CO GENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED ON RECORDS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OFTHE LENDER, AS UNDER :- (A) WRITTEN CONFIRMATION - - PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK (B) LEDGER STATEMENT - PAGE 18-19 OF PAPER BOOK ( C) INCOME TAX PAN CARD - PAGE 20 OF PAPER BOOK (D) INCOME TAX RETURNS - PAGE 21-22 OF PAPER BOOK ( E) BANK STATEMENTS - PAGE 23-53 OF PAPER BOOK (F) PARTNERSHIP DEED - PAGE 494-498 OF PAPER BOOK ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE FULLY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE LD. AO. THE SAID SHORT TERM BORROWINGS WERE AVAILE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAMELY GREEN FIELD ESTATES, HAVING INCOME TAX PAN AAIFG6397 A. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED ON RECORDS THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SAID PARTY AND TRANSACTIONS APPEARING THEREIN ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE LD. AO ALSO MADE AN INDEPENDENT ENQU IRY BY TAKING RECOURSE OF SECTION 133(6), WHICH WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE LENDER AND AFTER ALL SUCH EXAMIN ATION 10 AND VERIFICATION, THE LD. AO BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT MAKE ANY IOTA OF ANY ENQUIRI ES AT HIS END NOR HE TOOK ANY RECOURSE OF SECTION 133(6) OR 131 AND THEREFORE HE DID NOT HAVE ANY IOTA OF ANY BASIS O R FINDINGS TO MAKE SUCH ENHANCEMENT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, DULY SUPPORTED WITH REQUISITE COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORDS, WHICH ARE NEITHER DISPROVED NOR CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT -A ABRUPTLY AND BALDLY MADE THE SAID IMPUGNE D ENHANCEMENT, WHICH IS MADE IN MECHANICAL MANNER BY TAKING THE BALANCE APPEARING IN BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012, WHICH ALSO COMPRISED OPENING BALANCE OF RS.701,00,000/-, AS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUPPORTED WITH TRANSACTIONS IN BANK STATEMENTS, PLACED AT PAGE 25-28 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH AT ANY RATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CANNO T BE MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY ADDITIONS IN THIS YEAR. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ON RECORDS BONA- FIDE, LEGITIMATE AND VERIFIABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF. THE SAID BORROWINGS DULY SUPPORTED WITH COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND THEREFORE IT IS WRONG T O SUGGEST AT THE PART OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLEGEDLY NOT SATISFACTORY AND THE SAID PURPORTED PREMISE OF CIT -A IS CONTRARY TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORDS, WHICH PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS AS PER LAW AND HAS SHIFTED THE ONUS TO REVENUE TO PROV E 11 CONTRARY IF ANY. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY IOT A OF ANY FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY AND THUS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DO NOT WARRANT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT MADE BY LD CIT -A IS ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, BASELESS, UNLAWFUL, LEGALLY UNTENABLE AND THEREFORE, IN MOST HUMBLE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED/ QUASHED. (III) RS. 20,49,08,002 MADE ULS 69 RELATING TO 'WORK -IN- PROGRESS' AS APPEARING UNDER 'CURRENT ASSETS' IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET:- PARA 25 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING AT PAGE 7 THEREOF THE LD. CIT(A) MADE THE AFORE-SAID IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT IN MOST ARBITRARY, UNLAWFUL AND MECHANICAL MANNER U/S 69, WHICH HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE SAME A S THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND RECORDED THE 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; AS FULLY EVIDE NT FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS 69. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND 12 SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTOR Y, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. EMPHASIS SUPPLIED. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SECTION CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT T HE PROVISIONS THEREOF ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING THE TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THIS CASE, THE BALANCE OF 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF RS. 20,49,08,002/- IS DULY APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BALA NCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT ASSETS', RELEVANT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AND THEREFORE THE SAME STOOD DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT -A, WHO HIMSELF PICKED THIS FIGURE FROM THE BALANC E SHEET ITSELF AND THEREFORE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N, THE SAID BALANCE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS' CAN BE MADE ANY BASIS OF ANY ADDITION/ENHANCEMENT U/S 69. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT T O POINT OUT THAT PARA 4 OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE SAID EFF ECT COMPRISED AS UNDER :- YOU HAVE SHOWN 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' OF RS. 20,49,08,0021- . IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT TRANSFERRED TO YOUR P&L ALC. IT MAY THEREFO RE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ONLY TO RE-CATEGORIZE THE SAID AMOUNT SO AS TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO PROFIT AND LOSS ALC, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A COMPILATI ON OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS NO WHISPER ABOUT 13 INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 NOR ABOUT ANY PART OF SUCH EXPENSES BEING OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE AT ANY RATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE SAID ENHANCEMENT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFORE IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE ON THIS COUNT TOO. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ALL ABOVE, IT IS CATEGORICALL Y SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ON RECORDS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAID 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' DULY VERIFIED BY THE LD. AO, SUPPORTED WITH ALL COGENT AN D DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORDS, COPIES AT PAGES 54-498 OF THE PAPER BOOK, COMPRISING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS :- I. BREAK-UP OF 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' AND TITLE DEED OF L AND. PAGES 56-96 OF PAPER BOOK II. LEDGER AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS 'WORK-IN- PROGRESS'. PAGES 99-487 OF PAPER BOOK III. LOCATION MAP AND APPROVED MAP OF THE PROJECT. PA GES 488-491 OF PAPER BOOK IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAME STOOD FULLY EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) MISCONCEIVED THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS SUPPOSED TO APPEAR UNDER 'FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE' OF BALANCE' SHEET; WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF A BUILDER, THE LAND CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED UNDER FIXED ASSET AND THEREFORE SUCH MISCONCEIVED PRESUMPTION OF LD. CIT -A PROPELLED HIMSELF IN WRONG DIRECTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED UNLAWFUL 14 ADDITION/ENHANCEMENT, WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AN D IS LIABLE TO QUASHED/DELETED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE REMAIN NON -COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DECI DED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN AVAILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS PER LAW, HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN T HE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-518 ALONGWITH THE WRIT TEN SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THE RETURNED INCOME DECLARING LOSS AT (-) 494,001/- UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY IT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO MADE THE ADDI TIONS OF RS. 10,94,204/- AND THUS ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6 ,00,200/-. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NOIDA AND DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.05.2016, I SSUED U/S 251(2), READ WITH SECTION 251(1)(A), SIGNED BY THE INSPECTOR O F INCOME TAX, REGARDING ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT, DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE BEFORE HIM BEING THE INSPECTO R OF INCOME TAX. 5.1 IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.5.201 6 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY AND GIVEN HIS EXPLA NATION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) FEELING DISSA TISFIED WITH THE 15 EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 27.09.2016 ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS. 4,94 ,001/- U/S. 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961; BY RS. 12,75,00,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND BY RS.20,49,08,002/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND FINALLY COMPU TED THE INCOME AT RS. 33,35,52,203/- DIRECTING THE AO TO ISSUE NECESSARY DEM AND NOTICE, AS PER LAW. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2016, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE SMC ITAT, BENCH, NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 6272/DEL/2016 AND THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDE NCES AS DISCUSSED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSAR Y ADJOURNMENT AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDING S FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. 5.2 IN COMPLIANCE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31.5.2 018, THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE HEARING ON 20.8.2018 BY ISSUING NOTICE DATE D 03.08.2018. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT HIS COUNSEL IS DOWN WITH FEVER AND REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT IN THE FIRST WEE K OF OCTOBER, 2018. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ADJOURNMENT ON VAR IOUS TECHNICAL ISSUES VIZ. VAKALATNAMA WAS UNDATED AND AS THAT WAS ON A NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/- WHICH WAS SOLD BY A REGISTERED ST AMP VENDOR ON 18.8.2018; THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARI NG ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING ON 17.8.2018 AND COUNSEL CAN MAKE A STA TEMENT ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENT, CONVERSE IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW AND A CL IENT CANNOT MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ITS COUNSEL. THAT WOULD AMOUNT T O PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. FURTHER, THE VAKALATNAMA MENTIONE D TWO COUNSELS BEING 16 SH. NARESH BHARDWAJ, FCA AND SH. PRAVIND CHAND, FCA AND BOTH THE COUNSELS HAD ACCEPTED AND EXECUTED THE VAKALATNAMA. THE LETTER OF THE APPELLANT STATED ONLY ONE COUNSEL BEING DOWN WITH FEVE R. THEREFORE, THE OTHER COUNSEL WAS VERY WELL IN A POSITION TO ATTEND THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THIS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT DID NOT ENCLOSE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CONTENTION THAT THE SAID COUNSEL WAS DOWN WITH FEVER AND THEREFORE, WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REASON S FOR ADJOURNMENT BEING COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DONE WITH FEVER AND ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AND BY NOTICE DATED 26. 9.2018 THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 04.10.2018. THE SAID NOTICE WA S RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH PERSON ON THE ADDRE SS WRITTEN ON THE ENVELOPE IN WHICH THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). AGAIN NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 29.10.2018 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ON 26.9.2018 ANOTHER LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE APP ELLANT ON THE LETTER HEAD OF THE APPELLANT ITSELF AND SIGNED BY THE DIRECTO R STATING THAT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAD REQUESTED THE ADJOURNMENT PREF ERABLY HEARING IN THE 2 ND WEEK OF NOVEMBER, 2018, BUT AGAIN THE LD. CIT(A) N OT SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS D ETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ALREADY DETERMINED INCOME AT R S. 33,35,52,203/- VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018. 5.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2 018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NOIDA AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DAT ED 31.5.2018 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE L D. CIT(A) WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDE RING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS DISCUSSED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31.5.2 018 I.E. PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-518 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTA CHED THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND COMPUTATION; BALANCE SHEET AND PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; LETTER DATED 23.1.2015 FILED BEFORE AO GIVIN G DETAILS OF WIP AND 17 SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCES FOR UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CROR ES ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION AND BANK STATEMENT GREENFIELD ESTATE; LE TTER DATED 13.2.2015 FILED BEFORE AO GIVING BREAK UP OF WIP AND TITLE DE ED OF LAND OF THE PROJECT UNDER WORK IN PROGRESS; LETTER DATED 20.2.2015 FILED BEFORE AO SUBMITTED ALL THE LEDGERS AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO WORK IN PROGRE SS; LETTER DATED 26.2.2015 FILED BEFORE AO SUBMITTED LOCATION MAP, BRO CHURE AND APPROVED MAP OF THE PROJECT; LETTER DATED 20.3.2015 FILED BEF ORE AO SUBMITTED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED OF GREENFIELD ESTATE LENDER OF UNSECUR ED LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CRORES OF LOAN; LETTER DATED 25.3.2015 FILED BEFORE AO INFORMING THE AO THAT M/S GREENFIELD ESTATE HAS SENT CONFIRMATION THROUGH SPEED POST AFTER WHICH AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT; ORDER SHEET OF AO EVIDENCING THAT THE AO HAD RAISED QUERIES FOR LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CRORES AND WOR K IN PROGRESS AND EXAMINED AND VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED; NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT DATED 16.5.2015 ISSUED BY CIT(A); REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 26.5.2016 INFORMING THE CIT(A) ABOUT INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DIRECT TAX DISPUTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016; SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DATED 20.6.2016 REITERATING INTENTION TO AVAIL THE BENEFI T OF DIRECTOR TAX DISPUTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016; COPY OF ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE CIT(A) EVIDENCING THAT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT DA TED 16.5.2016 ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR AND SEEN AND DIRECT TAX D ISPUTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016. THE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 31 .5.2018 HAS ALSO WRITTEN THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTIFIE D THAT ALL THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH IS A MATTER OF RECO RD AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME IN A PROPER MANNER WHICH AR E VERY ESSENTIAL TO BE CONSIDERED AND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AFRESH. 5.4 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, I FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 REMITTE D BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AS AFR ESH, AFTER CONSIDERING 18 THE DOCUMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. BUT I HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AN D I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED 10 PARAGRAPHS OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER IN PARA NO. 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE ITAT ORDER AN D IN PARA 2 & 3 WRITTEN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AN D FINALLY REFUSED THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN MY V IEW LD. CIT(A) STARTS ITS PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE DATED 03.08.2018 AND DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 W HICH IS VERY SHORT PERIOD IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH SHOWS T HAT THE SAME IS PASSED IN A HASTE MANNER WITHOUT COMPLIANCE OF THE SPECIFI C DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT GIVEN VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 TO THE LD . CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SHAPE O F PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-518 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. BUT THE LD. CI T(A) DID NOT BOTHER TO EXAMINE THE SAME WHICH WAS ALREADY ON RECORD AS CERTIFIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BE EN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE T RIBUNAL GIVEN VIDE ORDER DATED 31.5.2018. 5.5 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE AO AND ALSO BEFORE THIS BENCH IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK CON TAINING PAGES 1-518, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT BOTHER TO CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM CONSIDERING, PERUSING AND APPRECIATING THE SAID EVIDENCES FILED IN THE SHAPE OF PA PER BOOK CONTAINING 19 PAGES 1-518 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AS WELL AS SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. 5.6 IT IS NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT ISSUING FRE SH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT, RESTORED HIS EARLIER ORDER WITH THE SAME E NHANCEMENT AGGREGATING TO RS. 33,29,52,003 AND PASSED THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 29.10.2018, WHICH IS NULL AND VOID SINCE THE SAME IS PASSE D WITHOUT ISSUING ANY FRESH NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT UNDER SECTION 251(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT SO MADE IN THE SAID ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVE TO BE CANCELLED. 5.7 IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16. 05.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL AND UNTENABLE, B ECAUSE THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DIRE CTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REPLY THEREOF BEFORE HIM, HAVING NO AUTHORITY IN LAW TO MAKE ANY ENHANCEMENT IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THU S HE ILLEGALLY ASSUMED THE FUNCTION OF CIT(A), WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AN D THUS THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NULL AND VOID AB-INITIO. THE SAID SHOW CA USE NOTICE WAS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED AS NO ENQUIRIES OR FINDINGS WERE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOR ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WARRANTING ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE AND THUS THE SAME IS ABSOLUTELY ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED AND WIT HOUT ANY BASIS AND THUS BAD AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. IT IS AN ADMITTED FA CT THAT ISSUE OF SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VERY VITAL AND ESSENTIAL BEING PRE-R EQUISITE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE SUCH IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT IS WITHOUT LAWFUL ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN MOST MECHANICAL MANNER SEEMINGLY WITH A PREJUDICED VIEW, WIT HOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES AVAILAB LE ON RECORDS, WHICH ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO AFT ER MAKING ALL ENQUIRIES AND THUS ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, PROVING THE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS I N RELATION TO SUCH 20 TRANSACTIONS AND THUS NO IOTA OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED TO WARRANT ISSUE OF ANY SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE OTHER BASIS OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ARE ALSO ABSOLUTELY UNWARRANTED AS THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SAYS THAT 'THE BALANCE OF RESERVE AND SURPLUS CAN'T BE NEGATIVE' AND TH AT WHY THE BALANCE OF 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; WHICH HAVING NO BASIS OR RELEVANCY FOR ANY ENHANCEMENT AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES ON RECORDS AND HAS FULLY DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY FURNISHING ALL REQUISITE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO, WHICH ARE NEITHER DI SPROVED NOR CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5.8 I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE PAGE NO. 513 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF ORDER SHEET 16.5.2016 OF THE INSPECTOR, SH. HIMA NSHU SONI AND THE APPROVAL DATED 17.5.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I AND TH E COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR AT PAGE 508 OF PAPER BOOK. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER SHEE T DATED 16.5.2016 OF THE INSPECTOR AND THE APPROVAL OF THE LETTER FOR ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2016 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE LETTER DATED 16.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 16/5/2016 PERUSAL TO THE ORAL DIRECTIONS OF CIT(A) , NOIDA, IT IS PROPOSED TO ISSUE ENHANCEMENT NOTICE U/S. 251(2) READ WITH SEC. 251(1)(A) FOR SHOWING CAUSE, WHY AN ENHANCEMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE DRAFT LETTER TO THE APPELLANT IS ENCLOSED FOR NECESSARY APPROVAL. SD/- (HIMANSHU SONI) INSPECTOR CIT(A)-I AS PROPOSED. SD/- 17.05.2016. 21 ITO/OS CONTENTS OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX READ AS UNDER:- '1. THE LD. AO HAS COMPUTED YOUR TOTAL INCOME RS. 600,200/- AND CONTESTING THAT YOU HAVE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. AD AND THE SAME IS P ENDING IS ADJUDICATION BEFORE THIS OFFICE '2. ON EXAMINING YOUR BALANCE SHEET, IT IS FOUND THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF RS. (-) 494,001, BUT RESERVE AND SURPLUS CAN'T BE NEGATIVE. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. '3 YOU HAVE TAKEN AN 'UNSECURED LOANS' OF RS. 12,75,50,0001-. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS TRANSACTION. '4 YOU HAVE SHOWN 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' OF RS. 20,49,08,0021-. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT TRANSFERRED TO YOUR P&L ALC. '5 HENCE, YOU ARE THEREFORE IN PERSON OR THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE DULY AUTHORIZED REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ENHANCEMENT OF YOUR INCOME BY RS. 33,29,52,003/- (I.E. RS. 20,49,08,002/- + RS. 12,75,50,000/- + RS. 494,00/-) SHOULD NOT BE MADE. IN THIS REGARD, I AM DIRECTED TO REQUEST YOU TO FURNISH THE REPLY OF THIS NO TICE WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. SD/- (HIMANSHU SONI) INSPECTOR 22 FOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I NOIDA 5.8.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID CONTENTS OF THE OR DER SHEET, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ORDER SHEET DATED IS 16.05.2016 AND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS ALSO OF DATED 16.05.2016, HOWEVER, THE APPROVAL GRAN TED BY THE LD. CIT(A_- I, NOIDA IS OF DATED 17.05.2016, WHICH SHOWS THAT APPRO VAL WAS GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA ON 17.5.2016 AND THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 16.5.2016 I.E. ONE DAY BEFORE THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, MEANING THE REBY THAT THE INSPECTOR IS PRE-DETERMINED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE WITHOUT APPLICATIO N OF MIND. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE INSPECTOR IS NOT COMPETENT TO ISSUE THE NOT ICE, HENCE, THE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX ON WHICH THE ENHANCEMENT WAS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A), IS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO AND DESERVE TO BE CANCELED. 5.9 AS REGARDS, THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) M ADE FOLLOWING ENHANCEMENT IN HIS ORDER:- (I) RS. (-) 4,94,001 MADE U/S 69C RELATING TO NEGAT IVE BALANCE OF RESERVE & SURPLUS AS PER THE AUDITED BALANCE SHE ET. PARA 23 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING A T PAGE 6 THEREOF. THE VERY PREMISE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BALANCE I N RESERVE AND SURPLUS CANNOT BE IN NEGATIVE, IS PREPOSTEROUS AND FRIVOL OUS; BECAUSE THE NEGATIVE RESERVES AND SURPLUS REPRESENTS LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE FULLY EVIDENT FROM THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS FROM THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DECLARING -THE SAID LOSS, WHICH WAS EXAMINED, VERIFIED AND ACCEPTED BY THE L D. AO AND WAS MADE A BASIS OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 23 SINCE THE AFORE-SAID NEGATIVE BALANCE OF RESERVE AND SUR PLUS, REPRESENTING LOSS FOR THE YEAR, STOOD FULLY ACCOUNTED F OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS APPEARING IN AUDITED BALANCE SHEET UNDER TH E HEAD 'SHAREHOLDERS' FUNDS' AND THUS THE SOURCE THEREOF IS FUL LY VERIFIABLE AND EXPLAINED AND THE SAME WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY THE LD . AO AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH AND THUS THE SAME DOES NOT WARRANT TO MA KE ANY ADDITIONS/ENHANCEMENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND BY NO ST RETCH OF IMAGINATION, SECTION 69C HAS ANY APPLICABILITY TO THE SA ME AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (II) RS. 12,75,00,000 MADE U/S 68 RELATING TO 'SHOR T TERM BORROWINGS' AS APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHE ET:- PARA 24 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING A T PAGE 7 THEREOF THE LD. CIT(A) MADE THE AFORE--SAID IMPUGNED ENHANCEM ENT IN MOST ARBITRARY AND MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT ANY BASIS, GRO SSLY IGNORING ALL REQUISITE AND COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED ON RECORDS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER, AS UNDER :- (A) WRITTEN CONFIRMATION - - PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK (B) LEDGER STATEMENT - PAGE 18-19 OF PAPER BOOK ( C) INCOME TAX PAN CARD - PAGE 20 OF PAPER BOOK (D) INCOME TAX RETURNS - PAGE 21-22 OF PAPER BOOK ( E) BANK STATEMENTS - PAGE 23-53 OF PAPER BOOK (F) PARTNERSHIP DEED - PAGE 494-498 OF PAPER BOOK ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE FULLY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE SAID SHORT TERM BORROWINGS WERE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAMELY GREEN FIELD ESTATES, HAVING IN COME TAX PAN AAIFG6397 A. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED ON RECORDS THE BANK STA TEMENTS 24 OF THE SAID PARTY AND TRANSACTIONS APPEARING THEREIN A RE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE AO ALSO MADE AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY TAKING RECOURSE OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DULY COMPL IED WITH BY THE LENDER AND AFTER ALL SUCH EXAMINATION AND VERIFICA TION, THE AO BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E, ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY AT HIS END NOR HE TOOK ANY RECOURSE OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT OR U/S. 13 1 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE HE DID NOT HAVE ANY IOTA OF ANY BASIS OR FINDINGS TO MAKE SUCH ENHANCEMENT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUL LY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, DULY SUPPORTED WITH REQUISITE COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORDS, WHICH ARE NEITHER DISPROVED NOR CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ABRUPTLY MADE THE SAID IMPUGNED ENHANCEMENT, WHICH IS MADE IN MECHANICAL MANNER BY TAKING THE BALANCE APPEARING IN B ALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012, WHICH ALSO COMPRISED OPENING BALANCE O F RS.701,00,000/-, AS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUPPORTED WITH TRANSACTIONS IN BA NK STATEMENTS, PLACED AT PAGE 25-28 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH AT ANY RATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY ADDITIO NS IN THIS YEAR. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ON RECOR DS BONA-FIDE, LEGITIMATE AND VERIFIABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NAT URE AND SOURCE OF THE SAID BORROWINGS DULY SUPPORTED WITH COGENT DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES AND THEREFORE IT IS WRONG TO SUGGEST AT THE P ART OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLEGEDLY NOT SAT ISFACTORY AND THE SAID PURPORTED PREMISE OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY T O THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORDS, WHICH PROVES THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS AS PER LAW AND HAS SHIFTED THE ONUS TO REVENUE TO PROVE CONTRARY IF ANY. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY AND THUS THE FA CTS AND 25 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DO NOT WARRANT TO INVOKE THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THUS THE IMPU GNED ENHANCEMENT MADE BY LD CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND BASELESS AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED. III) RS. 20.49,08,002/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT RELATIN G TO WORK IN PROGRESS AS APPEARING UNDER CURRENT ASSETS IN THE A UDITED BALANCE SHEET :- PARA 25 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATED 27.09.2016, STARTING A T PAGE 7 THEREOF THE LD. CIT(A) MADE THE AFORE-SAID IMPUGNED ENHANCEME NT IN MOST ARBITRARY, UNLAWFUL AND MECHANICAL MANNER U/S 69, WHI CH HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE SAME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND RECORDED THE 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; A S FULLY EVIDENT FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS 69. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR AN Y SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SECTION CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE PROVISIONS THEREOF ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASE OF INVESTM ENTS WHICH ARE 26 NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING THE TRANSACTIONS O UTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THIS CASE, THE BALANCE OF 'WORK-IN-P ROGRESS OF RS. 20,49,08,002/- IS DULY APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BALA NCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT ASSETS', RELEVANT PAGE 11 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, AND THEREFORE THE SAME STOOD DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUN T, AS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HIMSELF PICKED THIS F IGURE FROM THE BALANCE SHEET ITSELF AND THEREFORE BY NO STRETCH OF IMA GINATION, THE SAID BALANCE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS' CAN BE MADE ANY BASIS OF ANY ADDITION/ENHANCEMENT U/S 69. IT IS NOTED THAT PARA 4 OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE SAID EFFECT COMPRISED AS UNDER :- YOU HAVE SHOWN 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' OF RS. 20,49,08,002/- . IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS AMO UNT SHOULD NOT TRANSFERRED TO YOUR P&L ALC. IT MAY THEREFORE ABU NDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ONLY TO RE-CATEGORIZE THE SAID AMOUNT SO AS TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO PROFIT AND LOSS ALC, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A COMPILATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND THERE WAS NO WHISPER ABOUT INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 NOR ABOUT ANY PART OF SUCH EXPENSES BEING OUTSIDE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND THEREFORE AT ANY RATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE SAID ENHANCEMENT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFORE IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE ON THIS COUNT TOO. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ON RECORDS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF T HE SAID 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' DULY VERIFIED BY THE LD. AO, SU PPORTED WITH ALL COGENT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORDS, COPIES A T PAGES 54-498 OF THE PAPER BOOK, COMPRISING THE FOLLOWING D OCUMENTS :- I. BREAK-UP OF 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS' AND TITLE DEED OF L AND. PAGES 56-96 OF PAPER BOOK 27 II. LEDGER AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS 'WORK-IN- PROGRESS'. PAGES 99-487 OF PAPER BOOK III. LOCATION MAP AND APPROVED MAP OF THE PROJECT. PA GES 488-491 OF PAPER BOOK IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAME S TOOD FULLY EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) MISCONCEIVED THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS SUPPOSED TO APPEAR UNDER 'FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE' OF BALANCE ' SHEET; WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF A BUILDER, THE LAND CANNOT BE CA TEGORIZED UNDER FIXED ASSET AND THEREFORE SUCH MISCONCEIVED PRESUMPTION OF LD. CIT -A PROPELLED HIMSELF IN WRONG DIRECTION MAKING THE IMPUG NED UNLAWFUL ADDITION/ENHANCEMENT, WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AN D IS LIABLE TO DELETED. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND AND WITHOUT COMPLYING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TR IBUNAL GIVEN VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.2018. IN MY VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) SHO ULD HAVE ISSUED A FRESH NOTICE U/S. 251(2) TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM IN ORDER TO PROVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND TO ANSWER THE QUERY RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ENHANCEMENT NOTICE, BUT THE SAME HA S NOT BEEN DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. F URTHER, THE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX W HERE THE APPROVAL OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA WAS OF DATED 17.5.2018, W HICH SHOWS THE PRE- DETERMINED MIND OF THE INSPECTOR AND NON APPLICATION O F MIND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND EVEN THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME IS N OT COMPETENT TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE. EVEN OTHERWISE, ON PERUSING THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES 28 FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE WHICH I HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING P ARAGRAPHS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES WI TH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A MATTER OF RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ENHANCEMENT NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND RESULTANTLY THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT TENABLE, TH EREFORE, I CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 BY ACCEPTING THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02-03-2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02-03-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.