M/s. Intime Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2944/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5918 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2944/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2001-02 M/S INTIME CREDIT & HOLDING PVT. LTD., 101, AMAN CHAMBER, 47/21, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 060 (PAN: AAAC2890K) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ATIQ AHMED, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 17.3.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-15, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUSTAINING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,28, 744/-. 2 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, T HERE WAS NEITHER FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR COULD IT BE VALIDLY HELD THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE NEIT HER THERE WAS ANY SPECIFIC. FINDING BY LEARNED AO REGAR DING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND AS SUCH, THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND LIABLE 'TO BE DELETED AS S UCH. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE SUSTAINING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THERE BE ING-A VALID SATISFACTION RECORDED BY LEARNED AO, WHICH IS A PREREQUISITE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSE D BY LEARNED AO IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETE D AS SUCH. 3. THAT FURTHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS IGNORED THE BASIC FACT THAT PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING S, THUS, RELIANCE PLACED BY LEARNED AO AND CIT (A) SOL ELY ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED, AND MISPLACED IN LAW AND AS SUCH, THE PENALTY ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 3 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUSTAINING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 147 OF THE ACT AND, FURTHER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING TH E STATUTORY PRE-CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF THE PROC EEDINGS AND, COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OVERLOOKING THE BA SIC FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 5, 78, 365/- COMPRISING OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THREE PARTIES NAMELY M/S KANO DIA AGENCY, SH. DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND M/S ASHISH INVESTMENTS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AGAINST THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS AN D ADVANCES GIVEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THESE PARTIES BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND AS SUCH, THE ALLEGATION OF THE LEARNED ITO THAT APPELLANT COMPAN Y HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO OCCASION ON THE PART OF LEARNED ITO TO IMPO SE 4 PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 4.1 THAT FURTHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION, INFORM ATION AND EVIDENCES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE LOANS GIVEN AND RECEIVED BACK, WHICH WAS ALL BEEN ARBITRARILY BRUSHED ASIDE ON THE BASIS OF MERE CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND SUSPICION AND THE LEARNED' AO HAS NOT EVEN MADE A WHISPER OF SUCH DOCUMENTS IN HIS ORDER AND AS SUCH SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY SO LEVIED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND UNTENABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE - APPE LLANT, WITHOUT GIVING ANY FAIR AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THEREBY, VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ON RECEIPT OF INFORM ATION FROM DIT(INV.) REGARDING THE ASSESSEE HAVING RECEIVED ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES (AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,78,365/-) IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT F ROM VARIOUS CONCERNS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 26.12.2008. SINCE, 5 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ADDE D IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 5,85,26 1/- PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) WERE ALSO INITIATED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED SUCH ASSESSMENT BEFORE LD. CIT( A), WHERE THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. AFTER RECEIVING SUCH ORDER, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UNATTENDE D TO. THE AO THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND WAS LIABLE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THUS, A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 2,28,744/- BEING 100% OF TH E TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DAT ED 22.3.2013. AGAINST THE SAID PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.3.201 5 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAI D IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, STATED THAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE RE-ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY QUASHED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1726/DEL/201 2 (AY 2001-02) VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07.2015. IN THIS BEHALF HE FILED TH E COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.07.2015 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT PENALTY IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 6 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U /S. 271(1) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,28,744/- BEING 100% OF THE TAX S OUGHT TO EVADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE IN ITA NO. 1726/DEL/2012 (AY 2001-02) VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07. 2015, THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES VIDE PARA NO. 7 TO 8 AT PAGES 7 TO 13 AND QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT IN THIS REGARD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIB UNAL ORDER DATED 27.7.2015 AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ARGUED ON THE LEGAL ISSUE MENTIONED IN GROUND NO. 2 REPRODUCED ABOVE. TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148(1 ) OF 7 THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/06/2001 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,450/-. 2. CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE DIRECTORATE INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION)-I, NEW DELHI IN RESPECT OF THE BOGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS/COMPANIES. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FIGURES AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE ALLEGED BOGUS TRANSACTIONS GIVEN BY THE DIRECTORATE AFTER MAKING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRES. THE NAME AND OTHER PARTICULARS OF THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - NAME OF THE ASSESSEE/ BENEFICIARI ES NAME OF THE BANK OF BENEFICIA RY NAME OF THE OPERATOR INSTRUMENT NO. OPERATOR S A/C NO. AND BANK. DATE OF ENTRY AMOUNT (IN RS.) 8 M/S INTIME CREDIT & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. KANODIA AGENCY 22879 4, INNOVATIV E WAZIRPUR , DELHI 20.2.2001 60,000 - DO - ASHISH INVESTMENT 33737 - DO - 25.2.2001 68,365 - DO - DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. 7473 1200217, INNOVATIV E WAZIRPUR , DELHI 20.2.2001 4,50,000 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.5,78,365/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. 4. SINCE, THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS HAVE LAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE U/S 148 SHALL BE ISSUED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS 9 SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER. [REFERENCE IS INVITED TO THE SECTION 151(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961]. 5. SUBMITTED FOR KIND PERUSAL AND NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. A PROFORMA FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL IS ENCLOSED. SD/- (C.M. MEENA) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(4), NEW DELHI 7.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE ITO, WARD-11(4), NEW DELHI IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS UNEXPECTEDLY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 31.3.2008 ON THE LAST DATE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE GETTING TIME BARRED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AFTER A LAPSE OF NEARLY 7 YEARS FROM TH E DATE OF FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN I.E. 19.6.2001. ASSESSEE FURTHER OBJECTED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INV.-I), NEW DELHI IN WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS. 5,78,365/-. 10 7.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S . 148(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS THE REPLIES/OBJECTIONS DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LAW. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND, AO HAD MECHANICALLY ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE LD. DIT(INV.)-I, NEW DELHI. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF TENABLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND RECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SECONDLY, AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME WHICH HE NEVER RESPONDED AND THUS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM AND THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE ADHERED TO. THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE 11 REPLY/OBJECTION DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T . ACT AND ALSO REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF STATEMENTS OF ANY PARTY RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN USED. THE ASSESEEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED TO THE AO TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION THAT PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAS BEEN RECORDED AND USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 ARE ILLEGAL. TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) UNITED ELECTRICAL CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT & OTHERS (2002) 178 CTR (DEL) 192. II) CHUHARMAL VS. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 III) CBI VS. VC SHUKLA & OTHERS (1998) 3 SCC 410. IV) NR PAPER & BOARD LTD. VS. DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 733 (GUJ) (V) PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (200 1) 70 TTJ (AHMD.) 122. 7.3 WE FIND THAT AS REGARDS THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL RELATING TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THAT 12 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND RECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH ORDER DATED 21.7.2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2011] 338 ITR 0051, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD MATTER AS UNDER:- HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) THAT THE PETITIONER HAD INTRODUCED MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 LACS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AS STATED IN THE ANNEXURE. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM A COMPANY, S, WAS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND THE ASSESEE WAS THE BENEFICIARY. THE REASONS DID 13 NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT, EXCEPT THE ANNEXURE. THE ANNEXURE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT PRIMA FACIE SHOWED OR ESTABLISHED NEXUS OR LINK WHICH DISCLOSED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE ANNEXURE WAS NOT A POINTER AND DID NOT INDICATE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS OWN MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND EXAMINE THE BASIS AND MATERIAL OF THE INFORMATION. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE COMPANY, S, HAD A PAID-UP CAPITAL OF RS. 90 LAKHS AND WAS INCORPORATED ON JANUARY 4, 1989, AND WAS ALSO ALLOTTED A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IN SEPTEMBER, 2001. THUS, IT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A FICTITIOUS PERSON. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID AND WERE LLIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 14 7.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ABOVE ISSUE IS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, WE DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT DEALT WITH AS THE SAME HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 6.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT REASSESSMENT HAS SINCE BEEN QUASHED BY THE IT AT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.7.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1726/DEL/2012 (AY 2001 -02) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS AFORESAID, HENCE, THE PENALTY IN DISP UTE WILL NOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21/06/2018. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 21/06/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY OR DER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 16