Raj Kumar Chhabra, Haryana V. ITO ward-2(2), Faridabad

ITA 29/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0397 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Presumptive income; Opportunity of being heard; Benefit of exemption; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 54F; 69A; 147; 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. RAJ KUMAR CHHABRA, 5248, BALI NAGAR PALWAL, PALWAL, HARYANA VS. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD PAN :AEPPC2591H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 20/11/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: APPELLANT BY SH. S.K. VIRMANI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.07.2021 2 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 (1) THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EV IDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (2) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE' S ELIGIBILITY FOR PRESUMPTIVE BASIS OF TAXATION UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS EVIDENT FROM RETURN FILING OF INCOME TA X FOR THE SAID PERIOD AS PER THE CIT(A)'S ORDER PARA - 2 UNDER APP EAL BUT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 22,42,700/- AGAIN ST TURNOVER OF THE SAID YEAR WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS WHATSOEVER . RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. (3) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,50,000/- IN PRESUMING THAT THE EN TIRE CASH DEPOSIT WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE DISRE GARDING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOTHING BUT OUT OF OPENING CASH OF RS. 1,65,236/-, SALE OF SHOP (WITHOUT ASSETS & STOCK) AT RS. 6,00,000/-, SALE OF ENTIRE C LOSING STOCK AT RS. 22,42,700/-(WHICH SHOWN AS TURNOVER U/S 44AD) A ND AMOUNT REALIZED FROM DEBTORS AT RS. 9,60,690/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELE TING THE SAID ADDITION. AS PER PARA 7 OF CIT(A)'S ORDER UNDER APP EAL. (4) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PRESUMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE SHOP AT RS. 30,00,0 00/- WHEREAS ACTUALLY THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD TL SHOP AT RS. 6000 00 + SALE OF STOCK AT RS.2242700 + RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS RS 1573 00 . TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHOP SALE 600000+2242700+15730 0 =3000000 AND THE SAME AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCO UNT. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE CIT(A)'S ORDER PARA NO 7 UNDER APP EAL. (5) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN CONFIRMING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT DISREGA RDING THE FACTS THAT THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AT R S.444000/- AND OPENING CASH AS ON 1.4.10 OF RS 165236 AND CASH SALE SHOWN U/S 44AD WAS AVAILABLE(TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE 8 50000/-) BEFORE DEPOSITING 850000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT ON DT 23 .10.10 AND LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS CANNO T BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED WHEN THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS ALSO AS HEL D BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AGRA IN THE CASE OF ITO V. RAJEEV KUM AR GUPTA (ITA T AGRA) APPEAL NUMBER: ITA NO. 273/AGRA/2013 - DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14.02.2014. RELIEF MY PLEASE BE GRANTED B Y DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. (6) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN CONFIRMING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT DISREGA RDING THE FACTS THAT APPELLANT HAD ADOPTED THE PRESUMPTIVE TAXATION SCHEME UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AND LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER AS WELL 3 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 AS CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE APPELLANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR PRESUMPTIVE BASIS OF TAXATION UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BUT IGNORED THE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 22,42,700/- WI THOUT GIVING ANY REASONS WHATSOEVER. LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO ADDITION FOR CASH DEPOSITS WHEN ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME UNDER PR ESUMPTIVE SCHEME AS HELD IN THE CASE OF BIJOY SHRIBASTAB & AN R. V. ITO - DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23.05.2018 (ITAT KOLKATA). (7) THAT THE A.O.AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE FACT REGARDING SALE OF SHOP MEANS SOLD OF SHOP AT R S 30 LAKHS(WITHOUT CLOSING STOCK & ASSETS ) WHEREAS IN OUR CASE, SALE OF SHOP MEANS COST OF SH OP INCLUDING SALE OF FIXED ASSETS(FURNITURE & FIXTURES) AND ENTI RE CLOSING STOCK IN THE SHOP DUE TO CLOSURE OF BUSINESS DURING THE PERI OD UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOP COST WAS 6 LAKHS (REGISTRY DEED ) AND BALANCE 24 LAKHS WAS FOR CLOSING STOCK IN THE SHOP AND DEBT ORS. ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ENTIRE SHOP INCLUDING STOCK AND FURNITURE WAS FOR RS 30 LAKH, AS ASSESSE HAS PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITUATED AT SHYAM COLONY BALLABGARH FOR AMOUNT OF RS 3075000/- AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 5.12.18. DUE TO MISINTERPRETATION A.O. CONSIDERED RS 30 LAKHS AS SA LE AMOUNT OF OUR SHOP, ASSESSE CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND AMOUNT RS 2582852. AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 2 OF AS SESSMENT ORDER) THAT THE LD CIT (A) ADVISED THE A.O. TO COMPUTE CA PITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE OF SHOP SOLD BY APPELLANT SITUATED AT PALW AL AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54F/54 OF THE ACT7{AS EVIDEN T FROM PARA 8 UNDER APPEAL). (8) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE ABOVE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME ON 30/03/2012 DECLARING INCOME OF 1,57,540/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ON RECEIPT OF I NFORMATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CASH OF 39,10,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH AXIS BANK, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY WAY OF ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 D ATED 4 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 26/03/2018. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON VARIOUS DATES FROM 22/06/2018 TO 17/11/2018. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBMISSION ON 29/11/2018 STATING THAT RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT ON 30/03/2012 MIGHT BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GROSS TURNOVER 22,42,700/- AND NET PROFIT UNDER SECTION 44AD AT 2,25,800/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS IN BA NK ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE S HOP FOR A SUM OF 30 LAKH, ON WHICH LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF 25,28,852/- WAS SHOWN AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITI ON FROM TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF SHOP. AGAINST THE LONG-TERM CAPITA L GAIN, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 F ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS LON G-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE SHOP WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE OR IGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30/03/2012. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THOUGH SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SHOP WAS RECORDED TO BE RS. 6 LAKH RECEIVED ON 22/12/2000, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY SO LD FOR 30 LAKH AND SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 2 3/12/2000. 2.1 THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, ONLY AMOUNT OF 6 LAKH WAS RECORDED AND ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF THE PREMIUM, WHICH WOULD BE TAXABLE AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATED THE AMOUNT OF 24 LAKH (RS. 30.00 6.00) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 2.2 FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED DEPOS IT OF 8.5 LAKH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 23/10/2010, WHICH WAS F OUND NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THUS SAME WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION OF 32,50,000/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05/12/2 018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) , BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF STOCK. ACCORDING TO THE LD . CIT(A), SALE OF STOCK WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PAYMEN T FOR PURCHASE AND OTHER EXPENSES . AGGRIEVED WITH THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISIN G THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFE RENCING FACILITY AND FILED PAPER-BOOK, SYNOPSIS ETC. DOCUME NTS ELECTRONICALLY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTE D THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SHOP AL ONG WITH FURNITURE AND STOCK OF GOODS AS HE SHIFTED HIS BUSI NESS OF WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF WINDING UP OF BUSINESS OF CLOTH MERC HANT AT PALWAL (HARYANA) AND THEREFORE, NO PURCHASES WERE M ADE DURING THE PERIOD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE 6 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 DEPOSITED ALL-CASH AMOUNT OF 39,10,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT HAVING DETAILS AS UNDER: OPENING CASH ON HAND (AS PER PREVIOUS YEAR BALANCE-SHEET) RS. 1,6 5,236 ADD: SALE OF SHOP (WITHOUT A CERTAIN STOCK) RS. 6,00,000/ - ADD: SALE OF CLOSING STOCK RS. 22,42,700/- ADD: AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM PETTY DEBTORS RS. 9,60,690/ - TOTAL RS. 39,68,626/- LESS: DEPOSITED IN BANK RS. 39,10,000 CASH IN HAND RS. 58,626/- 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT STOCK WAS SOLD THROUGH LOCAL VENDORS AS STOCK CLEARANCE SALE AND SALE TURN OVER OF 22,42,700 /- HAS BEEN DECLARED UNDER SECTION 44AD I N THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT ARE AS PER SALES LEDGER CASH RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PU RCHASED ANOTHER SHOP SUBSEQUENT TO SALE OF THE SHOP UNDER R EFERENCE AND INVESTED THE REMAINING AMOUNT IN PURCHASE OF RESIDE NTIAL PROPERTY, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED AN Y BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NO CREDIBLE EV IDENCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CL AIM OF SALE OF STOCK AND FURNITURE ETC. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS ONLY A STORY COOKED UP TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ISSUE 7 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 IN DISPUTE IS IN RESPECT OF EXPLANATION OF SOURCE O F THE CASH DEPOSITS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED RECE IPT OF 30 LAKH IN CASH ON SALE OF SHOP, FURNITURE AND CLOSING STOC K OF TEXTILE, WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASS ESSEE STATED RECEIPT OF RS. 30 LAKH ON SALE OF THE SHOP ONLY AND IN THE REGISTERED DEED, SALE OF THE SHOP IS RECORDED ONLY AT RS. 6 LAKHS AND THEREFORE BALANCE 24 LAKH RECEIVED FALLS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING PREMIUM RECEIVED ON SALE OF SHOP. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALONG WITH SUBMISSION ON RECORD HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.22,42,700/-, DECLARED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT IN HIS ITR UPON WHICH PROFIT OF RS.2,25,800/- (10.07%) HAS BEEN DECLARED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF SALE OF SHOP FOR RS. 30 LA CS SITUATED AT JAWAHAR NAGAR, PALWAL, WHEREAS AS PER THE REGISTRAT ION DEED DATED 23.12.2010, THE SAME WAS SOLD FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6 LACS IN CASH. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE TH AT THE APPELLANT SOLD HIS SHOP FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS IN CASH. SUCH SUBMISSION MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS B EEN FOUND CONTRADICTORY TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS CHANGED HIS EXPLANATION DURING APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS BY STATING THAT SHOP WAS SOLD FOR RS. 6 LACS. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6 LACS HAVE BEEN FOUND EXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE CASH DEPOSI T OF RS. 30 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 23.12.2010. FURTHER, AF TER GOING THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS CASH DE POSIT OFRS.8,50,000/- ON 23.10.2010. THE APPELLANT HAS TR IED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND REMAINING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.24 LACS O N 23.12.2010 FROM THE SALES MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND FROM REALIZATION OF DEBTORS FROM THE PAST YEARS. THERE I S NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING DEBTO RS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,60,690/- FROM WHOM SUCH CASH WAS REALIZED. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.22,42,700/- FROM THE TRADI NG U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS BEYOND PREPOND ERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT THE APPELLANT COULD ACCUMULATE CAS H IN HAND TO SUCH EXTENT FROM THE REALIZATION OF DEBTORS AND SALE OF STOCK TO THE EXTENT TO MAKE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.8,50,000/- ON 23.10.201 0 AND RS. 24 LACS ON 23.12.2010. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE APPELLANT 8 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 HAD TO MAKE PAYMENTS IN ORDER TO MAKE PURCHASES IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE TRADING OF GOODS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE P RESUMED THAT THE WHOLE SALE PROCEEDS OUT OF STOCK WERE AVAILABLE WIT H THE APPELLANT TO MAKE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SUCH LUMPSUM CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 24 LACS AND RS.8.5 LACS ON 23.10.201 0 AND 23.12.2010 HAS NOT BEEN FOUND COMMENSURATE WITH THE TRADING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE WHOLE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FOUND BASED UPON PRESUMPTION AND WITHOUT ANY V ERIFIABLE PARTICULARS. IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO ACCEPT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING OUT TRADING JUST BY ACCUMULATING THE CASH SALES PROCEEDS WITHOUT MAKING CORRESPONDING PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES AND OTHER EXPENSES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS FOUND THAT TH E EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOS ITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24 LACS AND RS.8,50,000/- HAS BEEN FOUND AS U NSATISFACTORY. THE ONUS WAS ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAME WHICH HE FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED U/S 69A OF THE ACT AND THE GROUND OF APPE AL IS DISMISSED. 7.1 WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WILLING TO SUBMIT NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF SALE OF CLOSING STOCK OF TH E TEXTILE AND REALISATION OF THE DEBTORS. 7.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND I N THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH WITH THE DIRECTION TO T HE ASSESSEE TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL B E AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 9 ITA NO.29/DEL/2020 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2021. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI