Picheswar Gadde, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 288/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7831 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ATIYU AHMED
• Keywords: Opportunity of cross examination; Cost of acquisition; Assessment record
• Section: 48; 13; 147; 131; 148; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO.288/DEL 2019 & 6856/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 SH. PICHESWAR GADDE C/O.M/S. RRA TAX INDIA D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI-110049 PAN NO.AAJPG7365H VS ITO WARD 10 (1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. PRANSHU GOEL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. ATIYU AHMED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/01/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/01/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA NO.288/DEL/2019 AND 6856/DEL/2018 ARE TWO SEP ARATE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST TWO SEPAR ATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-22, NEW DELHI DATED 30.10.2018 AND 30.08 .2018 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE D ISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AN D BREVITY. 3. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO.288/DEL/2019 A.Y. 2 008-09. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUNDS BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAL LENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. ACCOR DINGLY GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.3 AND 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION OF RS.2.50 CRORES. 5. FACTS RELATING THIS GROUND SHOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.06.2014 AND 01.07.2014 ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED WAS M ARKED AS A-1 PAGE 89 AND WHICH IS AS UNDER :- 3 4 6. ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT THE AO FORMED A BE LIEF THAT CASH OF RS. 50 LACS WAS PAID FOR VIJAYWADA LAND. F URTHER THE AO FOUND THAT RS.65 LACS, 75 LACS AND 60 LACS WERE PAI D TO LJT VIVEKA INSTITUTE BY THE ASSESSEE 7. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THESE TRANSACT IONS FOUND TO BE NOTED ON THE DOCUMENT IMPOUNDED AT THE TIME O F SURVEY. IN HIS REPLY THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT SAID DOCUMENT IS DUMB DOCUMENT AND THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID DOCUMENT HAVE NO LOGICAL INFERENCE. 8. THE AO RUBBISHED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT CLEARLY APPLY AND, THEREFORE, ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. 9. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT ONCE AGAIN REI TERATED THAT THE ACCOUNT NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUM ENT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM OR TO HIS FAMILY MEMBER. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE ACT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA WHO IN HIS REPLY STATED THAT THE STATE BANK A CCOUNT PERTAINS TO VIJAYWADA BRANCH AND THE BANK MANAGER OF VIJAYWA DA BRANCH CONFIRMED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT PERTAINED TO LINGAY A SOCIETY. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RELA TED TO LINGAYA SOCIETY AND BASED UPON HIS CONVICTION, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.50 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER B EFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5 10. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY STATED THAT THE SAID ALLEGED DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION IS MADE IS NOTHING BUT A DUMB DOCUMENT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE DOCUMENT IS NEITHER IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE ASSESSEE NOR DOES BEAR ANY SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNS EL FURTHER STATED THAT THE PRESUMPTION U/S. 292 C OF THE ACT IS REBAT ABLE PRESUMPTION AND IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF. FOR THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P. R. MATERANI 2006 157 TAXMANN 325. 11. PER CONTRA THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDIN GS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPU GNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IS EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. A BARE PERU SAL OF THE SAID DOCUMENT SHOW THAT FIRST ENTRY OF RS. 50 LACS PERTA INS TO VIJAYWADA LAND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE ASSESSEE OR LINGAYA SOCIETY HAS PURCHASED ANY LAND AT VIJAYWADA. THE OTHER ENTRIES OF RS. 75 LACS, 65 LACS AND 60 LA CS PERTAINED TO LINGAYA JAN KALYAN TRUST (LJT). INCIDENTALLY LJT C AME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 10.07.2009 AS EVIDENT FROM THE PA N CARD EXHIBITED AT PAGE 203 AT THE PAPER BOOK. WHEN THE LJT WAS NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I .E. A.Y. 2008-09 THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF GIVING ANY LOAN/ IN VESTMENT TO LJT 6 OR IN THE NAME OF LJT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 292C OF THE ACT CLEARLY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITIONS MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS U/S. 132 (4A) / 292C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE PRESUMPTION HAD TO BE BACKED BY DIRECT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE NOTIN GS HAS MATERIAZED INTO INCOME OR UNEXPLAINED INCOME/ UNEXPLAINED EXPE NDITURE. 13. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT OF T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE IS NO C ORROBORATIVE / DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE. 14. WHEN THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT AT VIJAYWADA BELONGS TO LINGAYA SOCIETY THEN THE AO SH OULD HAVE MADE ATLEAST SOME NECESSARY ENQUIRIES FROM THE SAID SOCI ETY BUT WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS DONE ANY SUCH EXERCISE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT I S A DUMB DOCUMENT. ACCORDING TO THE AO A DOCUMENT CAN BE CO NSIDERED AS DUMB DOCUMENT ONLY WHEN IT HAS NO REFERENCE AS TO A NY PERSON OR IDENTITY OR TO ANY DATE OR TO ANY AMOUNT. WE FIND THAT NO DATES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ENTRIES WHICH ARE BA SIS OF THE ADDITIONS. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHEN NO DATES HAV E BEEN MENTIONED THEN HOW THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2008-09. FURTHER THE ENT RIES RELATING TO LJT WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO PERTAINED TO A.Y. 200 8-09 HAVE TO BE 7 DEMOLISHED ON THE FACT THAT LJT CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 10.07.2009 WHICH FALLS IN F.Y. 2009-10 RELATING TO A.Y. 2010-1 1. 15. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE WITHOUT ANY C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO H ESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.50 CRORES. GROUND N O. 3 AND 4 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.97634 0/-. 17. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION SHOW THAT ON PE RUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT THE AO NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.99 LACS HAS BEEN CREDITED ON 24.04.2007, 2.50 LACS IS CREDITED ON 13 .10.2007 AND RS.177340/- WAS ALSO FOUND CREDITED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T RS. 4 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S. SUN INDIA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED AS LOAN AND RS. 2.50 LACS IS THE LOAN REPAID BY M/S. GYAN K UND TRUST EDUCATE AND RS.177340/- IS THE LOAN TAKEN FROM WIFE SMT. SUNITA GADDE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 18. ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 8 19. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED T HAT THERE IS NO CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 3.99 LACS ON 24.04.2007. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT IN FACT ON 03.04.2007 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM M/S. SUN INDIA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED. THE COUNS EL POINTED OUT THAT THE CONFIRMATION WAS FILED WHICH WAS NOT EXAMI NED BY THE AO. THE COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RE PAID THE LOAN IN THE YEAR ITSELF WHICH IS ALSO NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE AO / CIT(A). 20. THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. 21. FURTHER ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.50 LACS THE COUNS EL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF M/S. G YAN KUND TRUST EDUCATE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS THE LOAN REPAID BY THE TRUST OUT OF THE OPENING BALANCE. IT IS THE SA Y OF THE COUNSEL THAT THIS EVIDENCE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE DR STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FIND INGS OF THE AO/ CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RELE VANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. EXHIBIT 21 0-212 ARE THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. SUN INDIA F INLEASE PRIVATE LTD. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOW THAT ON 03.04.2007 LOAN OF RS. 4 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE NO.119552. WE FURTHER F IND THAT 9 STARTING FROM 10.04.2007 TO 24.10.2007 THE LOAN HAS BEEN REPAID FULLY. WE FIND THAT THE AO/ CIT(A) HAVE NOT EVEN B OTHERED TO CONSIDER THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CONTAINS T HE PAN DETAILS OF M/S. SUN INDIA FINLEASE PRIVATE LTD. FURTHER EV EN THE AO HAS CONFUSED HIMSELF WITH THE DATE. AS MENTIONED ELSEWH ERE ON 24.04.2007 THERE IS NO CREDIT ENTRY OF THIS AMOUNT AND IT IS ONLY CREDITED ON 03.04.2007. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ASS UMING THAT THE APPELLANT INTRODUCED HIS OWN ACCOUNTED CASH IN THE FORM OF LOAN TO SHOW HIS ACCOUNTED CAPITAL, WHAT BENEFIT A PERSON W OULD DRIVE IF THE SAME LOAN IS REPAID IMMEDIATELY THEREBY REDUCING TH E ACCOUNTED CAPITAL. CONSIDERING THE FACT IN TOTALITY WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS AND THE SAME IS DIRECT T O BE DELETED. 23. EXHIBIT 213 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE CONFIRMATI ON OF M/S. GYAN KUND TRUST EDUCATE AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ON 01.04 .2007 THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.15 LACS OUT OF WHICH O N 13.10.2007 RS. 2.50 LACS WAS REPAID BY CHEQUE NO. 770251. EXH IBIT 215 SHOW THAT ON 08.12.2006 LOAN OF RS 5 LACS WAS GIVEN BY C HEQUE NO. 175852 AND ON 0802.2007 LOAN OF RS 10 LACS WAS GIVE N BY CHEQUE NO.917483. SINCE THE ENTRY OF RS.2.50 LACS IS NOTH ING BUT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS NO ADDITION NEED TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. WE AC CORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2.50 LACS ALSO. 10 24. THE COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITION OF RS.17 7340/- AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED GROUND NO. 6 AND 7 ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE ITA NO.288/DEL/2019 IS PARTL Y ALLOWED ITA NO. NO.6856/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) 26. VIDE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLEN GED THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT 27. FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE I NFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DDIT (INVESTIGATION )-1, FARIDABAD THROUGH DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE P REMISES OF THE ASSESSEE VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND EXAMINED. AS PER THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAS PAID A CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 3.15 CRORES TOWARDS PURCHASE COST OF FARM HOUSE BEARING NO. 1, DERA MANDI, CHATTARPUR, NEW DELHI. THE SELLER SMT. JAYA SHARMA IN HER STATEMENT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAV E PAID OF RS. 3.15 CRORES OUT OF WHICH 2.10 CRORES WAS PAID IN CA SH. 28. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION NOTICED U/S. 1 48 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 11 29. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE AFTER FOUR YEARS AND WITHO UT APPLYING HIS MIND ON THE FACTS WHICH WERE ALREADY THERE BEFORE I SSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THA T THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS TO BEL IEVE AND BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE COUNSE L POINTED OUT THAT IN THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THE AO HAS MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATION REPORT RECEIVED FROM DDIT, FARIDABAD. HOWEVER, WHI LE RECORDING THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT THE AO HAS NOT PLACED RELIANCE ON ANY SUCH DOCUMENT AND IN STEAD THE AO SIMPLY RECORDED HIS REASONS TO BELIEVE PLACING RELI ANCE ON STATEMENT OF 3 RD PARTY SMT. JAYA SHARMA. THE COUNSEL FURTHER STATE D THAT THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF THE THIR D PARTY WHICH WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SPITE OF SEVERAL REQUESTS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE AO DID NOT GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SM T. JAYA SHARMA. THE COUNSEL STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE REO PENING IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 30. THE DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 31. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF T HE AO SHOW THAT 12 THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS CONSI DERED THE PAST ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AO HAD IN FACT GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL RETU RN THAN THE AO WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT ON 21.06.2011 A NOTICE U/S. 142 (1) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIO NARE :- 32. FURTHER THE AO WOULD HAVE FOUND THE FOLLOWING R EPLY :- 13 33. EXHIBIT 7 TO 28 IS THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF FARM HOUSE BEARING NO. 1, DERA MANDI, CHATTARPUR, NEW DE LHI. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID SALE DEED SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION AMO UNT OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS RS. 1.05 CRORES AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 21.11.2011 WHICH WAS FRAMED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS PLACED AT PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 34. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS AND, THEREFORE, THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CLEARLY APPLY WHICH READ S AS UNDER :- PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TA KEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INC OME 14 CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY A LL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 35. THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISO CLEARLY STATE THAT NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR Y EARS UNLESS ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S. 139 OR TO DISCLOSE F ULLY AND TRULY OR ON MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. 36. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139 (1) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DULY ASSES SED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. ALL THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE AO WERE D ULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 37. MERELY BECAUSE SOME UNRELATED PARTY IN HER STAT EMENT HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAVE PAID CON SIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE TRANSACTION VALUE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY T HE REOPENING AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, FIRSTLY BECAUSE THE SAID STA TEMENT WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION WAS GIVEN AND SECONDLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONS IDERATION WAS 15 MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. I N FACT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE STAMP DUTY ON THE TRANSACTION VALUE OF 1.05 CRORES AND, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE AO. 38. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ON THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN HAND AS DISCUSSED HERE IN ABOVE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. W E ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT THEREBY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 FRAMED U/S. 143 ( 3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 39. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSE LF, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DWELL INTO THE MERITS OF THE C ASE ITA NO.6856/DEL/2018 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01.2021. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (N. K. B ILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:-20 .01.2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 16 DATE OF DICTATION 18.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.01.2021 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER