Ashish Dham, New Delhi V. Pr. CIT- 22, New Delhi

ITA 2181/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3065 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Period of limitation; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 119; 263; 154; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, A: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2181 /DEL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] ASHISH DHAM, C-1/2, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI-110016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROOM NO.315, B BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 PAN-AABCG3985C ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. SATPAL GULATI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 12.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.10.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -22, NEW DELHI, DATED 27.03.2017 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO THE ACT) RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THEREBY REVISING THE ASSESSMENT COMPL ETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2015. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT ON LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 2 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS ON ISSUE OF REVISION, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED AND REPLIED BY APPELLANT AND CONSIDERED BY ID ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1. LD C IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 ON THE PROPOS AL OF ID ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2, THE LEARNED CIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY DURING 263 PROCEEDINGS IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON LAW AND FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO ID ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATING THE ISSUE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTA NCES THAT AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 263 ONLY ID COMMISSIONER H AS THE POWERS TO INVESTIGATE ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH PROVIS ION OF SECTION 263 IS INVOKED.. 3. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.20 13, PERTAINING TO THE AY 2012-13, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.21,42,580/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT) WAS MADE, THEREBY THE INCOME AS DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJEC TION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED RECTIFICATION PROCEEDIN GS U/S 154 OF THE ACT HOWEVER, SAME WAS DROPPED INSTEAD THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) MADE PROPOSAL FOR REVISING THE ASSES SMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT MADE TO THE LD.PR.CIT. 4. THE LD. PR. CIT OBSERVED THAT DURING THE AUDIT SCRUTINY OF THE CASE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AUDIT P ARTY THAT THE 3 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.6 LACS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 24B OF THE ACT OF RS.23,92,809/- AS INTEREST PAID FOR HOME LOAN AGAINST THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.C-207 , SARVODAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110017. THE LOAN CERTIFICATE AND PROOF OF LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY, ON WHICH INTEREST OF H OME LOAN WAS PAID, WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS. THE RENT A GREEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, ON WHICH RENTAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED, WAS ALSO NOT ON THE RECORDS. THE REASON FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF CL AIM OF INTEREST AGAINST THE SAID PROPERTY OF RS.23,92,809/- WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THA T AFTER VERIFYING THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE OBS ERVATION OF THE AUDIT PARTY AND AGREED QUA THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THEM THAT THE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT AGAINST THE SAID PRO PERTY WAS NOT IN THE RECORDS AND THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E TO SUGGEST PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.23,92,809/- AGAIN ST HOME LOAN RELATED TO THE PROPERTY. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE PROPOSAL FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 2 2.11.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO FIRST NOTIC E, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED; IN RESPONSE THERETO THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. PR. CIT RECORDED 4 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 THAT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CONSIDERED. THE LD. PR. CIT, THEREAFTER, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREBY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, THE ORDER WAS S ET-ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE AND PASS A SPE AKING ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SH. SATPAL GULATI, LD. CIT-D R APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORD ER OF THE LD. PR. CIT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND SAME MAY BE U PHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. CIT DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. PR.CIT HAS REVISED THE ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSES. L D. A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT TH E NON FILING OF RENT AGREEMENT AND LOAN TAKEN AGAINST THE PROPER TY C-207, SARVODAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110007, AGAINST WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 23,92,809/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED. FROM THE RECOR DS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE CAS E PROPERLY AND ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE DOCUMENTS FILE D BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. INSTEAD OF FILING ANY EXPLANATION ON T HIS ISSUE, 5 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING THE ISSUE THAT NOTICE U/S 154 WAS ISSUED AND ALSO RAISING THE ISSUE THAT ON T HE BASIS OF AUDIT OBSERVATIONS, ACTION U/S 263 CANNOT BE TAKEN. I HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND OBSERVED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT THIS MISTAKE WAS INITIALLY RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY, HO WEVER, LD. AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND OBSERVED THAT THE AO, A T THE TIME OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY AND ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE LD. A.R. SINCE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE O RDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE, HE SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF T HE I.T.ACT. IF THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE, 263 PROCEEDINGS WILL ATTRACT, WHETHER IT W AS POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT OR NOT, IS IMMATERIAL. AO, AT THE TIME OF SENDING THE PROPOSAL, WAS SATISFIED THAT ORDER PASS ED BY HIS PREDECESSORS WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER R AISED THE ISSUE THAT ORDER IS NON-EST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PASS ED BY THE OFFICER HAVING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION. I HAVE CON SIDERED THIS ALSO AND OBSERVED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT CANNOT BE RAISED DURING THE TIME OF PROCEEDING U/S 263 OF THE I.T.AC T. EVEN IF WE PRESUME, BUT NOT ACCEPTING, THAT THE ORDER WAS PASS ED BY THE OFFICER WHO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION, THAT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ISSUES, I AM OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATED THE CASE, DOCU MENTS FILED BY THE LD. A.R. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND ALSO HAS NOT PERUSED THE EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT RECORD I.E. FOR AY 2011-12. AO WAS DUTY-BOUND TO INVESTIGATE TH E FACTS OF THE ISSUE. HE HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE AND AL SO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE LD. A.R. AFTER CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER IS SET ASIDE WIT H DIRECTIONS TO THE AO TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE ONLY AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. (UNDERLINED FOR EMPHASIS BY US) 8. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD TAKEN VARIOUS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT. I T IS NOTICED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DULY CONSID ERED BY THE LD. PR. CIT BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT W AS CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT THAT T HE ASSESSMENT 6 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 ORDER THAT WAS BEING SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS NON-E ST IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS NOT HAVING THE REQUISITE JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT, AT THE INSTANCE OF AUDIT PARTY AND AFTER MAKING NEC ESSARY ENQUIRY, HE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, T HERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 8.1. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE UNDERLINED PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER , THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON TH E BASIS OF THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHICH MANDAT E THE CONCERNED LD.PR.CIT HAS TO BE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS SO FAR PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF EFFECTIVE ADJUDICA TION, SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 263. (1) THE 67 [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER ] OR COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDI NG UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVI NG THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MA KING OR 7 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT ING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION , (A) AN ORDER PASSED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE (I) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISS IONER UNDER SECTION 144A ; (II) AN ORDER MADE BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IN EX ERCISE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIP AL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORISED BY THE BOAR D IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120 ; (B) 'RECORD' SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALW AYS TO HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDING UND ER THIS ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE PRINCIP AL 68 [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL] COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; (C) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTIO N AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF J UNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE** PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DE EMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL 69 [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL] COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, (A) THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES O R VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; (B) THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOU T INQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM; (C) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER SECTION 119 ; OR (D) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH ANY DECISION WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, REND ERED BY THE 8 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON. (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AF TER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO, ANY FINDING O R DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 70 [NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL], THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION.IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVI NG AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCT ION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 9. AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, THE LD. PR. CIT IS EMPOWERED TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER P ASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVI NG THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR C AUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, I NCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CAN CELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE SET-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE T HE ISSUE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THI S APPROACH OF THE LD. PR. CIT IS ERRONEOUS AS THE LAW IS CLEAR T HAT THE LD. PR. 9 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 CIT EITHER HE CAN MAKE ENQUIRY HIMSELF OR CAUSE SUC H ENQUIRY TO BE MADE BUT SUCH EXERCISE IS TO BE MADE BEFORE PASS ING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT WERE DROPPED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD REQUESTED FOR EXERCISING POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. PR. CIT. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE REVISION BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS BASED UPON THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS. FURTHER, THE LD. PR. CIT DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE OBJ ECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THESE UNDISPUTED F ACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 OF T HE ACT BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WE, THEREFORE, HEREBY QUAS H THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING UNJUST AND CONTRARY TO THE SET TLED LAW. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER. 2021. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- [G.S. PANNU] [KUL BHARAT] PRESIDENT JUDICIA L MEMBER DELHI; DATED: 25/10/2021. F{X~{T F{X~{T F{X~{T F{X~{T BT| BT| BT| BT| T T T T 10 ITA NO.2181/DEL/2017 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI