SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON, BATHINDA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 300/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3108 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK ANAND; SANDEEP BANSAL ADV RESPOND
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 143(2); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB, BEN CH AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON #16310, STREET NO. 13/5 DHILLON COLONY, BARNALA BYE PASS, BATHINDA. VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA (PUNJAB). ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: ADMPD 8422 A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. DEEPAK ANAND, ADV. & SH. SANDEEP BANSAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PRABHJOT KAUR, CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/11/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A.L. SAINI : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 26.03.2019. 2. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 PASSED BY THE PR. CIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2014-15 ON 29.09.2014 DECLARING THE TOTAL IN COME AT RS. 14,35,496/-. LATER ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 ON, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26.04.2016 BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST FREE ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S. SARUP CHAND COMPANY. 4. LATER ON, THE LD. PR. CIT EXERCISED HIS JURISDIC TION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WERE SOME DEFICI ENCIES AND IRREGULARITIES CREPT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26.04.2016. THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DURING THE EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT:- (I) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2014- 15, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME CREDITED IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN M/S DEEP AGRO EXPORT, BHUCHO MANDI AS UNDER :- I) COMMODITIES PROFIT RS. 85,18,553/- II) KANDA INCOME RS. 1,81,030/- III) PLINTH RENT RS. 8,20,260/- PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO BUSINES S INCOME AT ALL. HOWEVER, AS PER THE TRADING ACCOUNT THE OPENING STOCK OF BARDAN A HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.10,85,233/- AND SALES THEREOF AT RS. 2,48,700/- AND CLAIMED LOS S OF RS. 8,36,533/-. THE DETAIL OF SALES OR OPENING STOCK AND ALSO EXPLANATION ABOUT LOSS OF RS. 8,36,533/- HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (II) IN THE CASE OF HUSK ACCOUNT, THE OPENING STOCK HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AT RS. 14,50,000/- AND SALES OF RS. 13,77,429/- AND LOSS O F RS. 72,571/-. THE DETAIL OF SALES AND OPENING STOCK, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO W HOM THE HUSK WAS SOLD AND JUSTIFICATION OF LOSS SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (III) IN THE CASE OF PHUCK ACCOUNT, THE OPENING STO CK HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AT RS. 5,10,027/- AND SALES OF RS. 4,69,557/- AND LOSS OF RS. 40,470/ -. THE DETAIL OF SALES AND OPENING STOCK, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PHUCK WAS SOLD AND JUSTIFICATION OF LOSS SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (IV) IN THE CASE OF RICE ACCOUNT, THE OPENING STOCK HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AT RS. 27,20,000/- AND SALES OF RS. 10,87,520/- AND LOSS O F RS. 16,32,480/- . THE DETAIL OF SALES AND OPENING STOCK, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE RICE WAS SOLD AND JUSTIFICATION OF LOSS SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (V) FROM THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO PU RCHASE AND NO TRADING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. NO PLANT AND MACH INERY HAS BEEN USED, EVEN THEN THE ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 11,08,113/- MAKING T HE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. (VI) THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED COMMODITY PROFIT IN DEEP AGRO AT RS. 85,18,553/- AND IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT AT RS.19,80,410/-, NO DET AILS/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER REGARDING SUCH PROFIT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. (VII) AS PER COMPULATION OF INCOME STATEMENT, THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED RENT FROM PLINTH AT RS. 19,93,563/- AND THEREAFTER CLAIMED AT RS. 25,11,387/- AS B/FLOSS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS, THE LOSS FROM BUSINESS CA NNOT BE SET-OFF AGAINST RENTAL INCOME. EVEN THE DETAILS OF B/F LOSSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. I T SHOWS THAT THIS LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 35AD. THE LOSS IN NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE SET OFF. THE LOSS AND AS TO HOW THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMIN ED. (VIII) FROM THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT THE CASH BALANCE ON 31.03.2014 HAS BEEN SHOWN A T RS. 65,65,625/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE DOUBLE OF THE SO CALLED SALES DISCLOSED DU RING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LIMITS FROM BANKS IN CRORES AND DEPOSIT IN BANK ACC OUNT AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS RS. 3,144/- AND RS. 11,978/- ONLY. HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUCH A HUGE CASH AT THE END OF THE YEAR HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (IX) THERE IS ALSO A LOAN OF RS. 8,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF SH. ANGREJ SINGH, THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DEPOS IT HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (X) IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PRO PRIETOR OF DEEP AGRO EXPORTS. FURTHER, AS PER AIR DETAILS, THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 42,12,600/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN ICICI BANK. THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOR DEPOSIT ING IN BANK HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (XI) IN OTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN SBBJ THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9,00,000/- ON 01.02.2014 AND RS. 6,00,000/- ON 03.02.2014. NO EXP LANATION AND BANK STATEMENT HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR OR AVAILABLE ON RECORD. (XII) THE PERUSAL OF INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT REVEALS T HAT IN THIS ACCOUNT FLAT OF RS. 10,48,322/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS WRITTEN OFF WHICH MEA NS THIS FLAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTUAL STATUS OF FLAT AND AS TO HOW T HE SAME IS APPEARING AS WRITTEN OFF HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. (XIII) SIMILARLY PLOT AT BCL IND & INFRA OF RS. 80,531/- H AS BEEN SHOWN AS WRITTEN OFF. NO DETAIL OR EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER REGARDING THIS FLAT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR. (XIV) THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INVESTMENT IN 15 PROPERTIES FOR RS. 1,24,57,081/-. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED HOW SO MANY PROPERTIES HAS BEEN A CQUIRED DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ARE PL OTS OR LAND WHICH MEANS THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TAXABLE DURING THE YEAR UND ER REFERENCE AND EARLIER YEARS. THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY AND ALSO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED.' 5. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REPLY BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT STATING THAT THE TRADING ACTIVITIES TOOK PLACE DURING THE PERIOD IN CONSIDERATION, THE LOSSES CLAIMED IN ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 BARDANA ACCOUNT, HUSK ACCOUNT, PHUCK ACCOUNT, RICE ACCOUNT WERE DUE TO POOR QUALITY OF THE ITEMS, DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY CLAI MED ON BUILDING AND MACHINERY AS TRADING WAS DONE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. CASH B ALANCE OF RS. 65,65,625/- WAS THE OPENING CASH AND SALES/BUSINESS RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR, CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS DURING THE YEAR. A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMODITY PROFIT HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN STATED THAT MOST OF THE ASSETS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND THAT ALL ASSETS WERE OLD AND NOT ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. HOWEVER, THE PR. CIT REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFOR E US THAT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT WAS A LIMITED SCRUTINY THRO UGH CASS. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LIMITED SCRUTINY HAS ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE LI MITED SCRUTINY WAS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26.04.2016, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 014-15 WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS WITH THE REASONS LARGE INTER EST EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INVESTMENTS U/S 14A, LARGE DEDUCTION U/S 57 AND MIS MATCH IN TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND KE EPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY I.E. ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN MADE. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ITEMS COVERED BY LIMITED SCRUTINY, HENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS; THEREFORE JURIS DICTION EXERCISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 5 55 5 10. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR FOR THE R EVENUE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS VIDE POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HENCE HE HAS EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE FURTHER ITEMS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE HE MAY CONVERT T HE LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE INTO A COMPLETE SCRUTINY CASE AFTER TAKING PERMISSION FR OM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN THE PERMISSION FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO CONVERT THE LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE INTO A COMPLETE SCRUTINY CASE, THEREFORE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. APART F ROM THIS, THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ITE MS WHICH WERE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 5 DATED 1 4.07.2016 WHEREIN DIRECTION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY TO THE ASSESSING OF FICERS. FIRST PARA OF THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.20/2015 DATED 29.12.2015 IN FI LE OF EVEN NUMBER, BOARD HAS LAID DOWN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING OF C ASES UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY WHICH WERE SELECTED THROUGH COMPUTER AIDED SCRUTINY SELECTION IN CASS CYCLE 2015. IN THESE CASES, IT WAS STATED THAT THE GENERAL SCOP E OF ENQUIRY IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS WHI CH FORMED THE BASIS FOR SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY. HOWEVER, IN REVENUE POTENTIAL CA SES, IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT COMPLETE SCRUTINY COULD BE CONDUCTED, IF THERE WA S POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ABOVE A PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT, SUBJECT TO THE A PPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PR. CIT/CIT/PR. DIT/DIT. 12. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS RE-OPENED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 014-15 WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS WITH THE REASONS LARGE INTER EST EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INVESTMENTS U/S 14A, LARGE DEDUCTION U/S 57 AND MIS MATCH IN TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND KE EPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY I.E. ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN MADE. ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 6 66 6 13. WE NOTE THAT ITEMS AND DOCUMENT REQUIRED FOR LI MITED SCRUTINY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW : WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE SAID CASE, I SUBMIT AS UND ER: 1. THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE PRODUCED BEFORE YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 2. (A) THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 57 IS ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST EXPENSES OF RS. 2511387/- WHICH IS CLAIMED ON THE INCOME EARNED OF RS. 3973973/-. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS. ACCOUNTS AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS ATTACHED HERE WITH IN WHICH IT IS DULY REFLECTED THESE ACCOUNTS. (B) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ANY SUCH KIND OF INVE STMENT OR EARNED INCOME ON SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS INCOME EARNED I S SHOWN IN THE ITR FOR WHICH EXPENSES IS INCURRED IN THE FORM INTEREST ETC. FURT HER THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACCOUNTS AND THE ITR ARE ENCLOSED. (C) THAT THERE IS NO MISMATCH IN THE FIGURES OF SAL E TURNOVER IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE ITR. FURTHER THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE ITR ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. 14. WE NOTE THAT DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS ASKED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED THESE DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAI D TO BE ERRONEOUS ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRITTEN A BRIEF ORDER WITHOUT BRINGING ALL THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD. FOR THAT WE RE LY ON THE JUDGMENT OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS GOYAL PRIVATE FAMILY SPECIFIC REPORTED IN 1988 171 ITR 698. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. AN ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERR ONEOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUND THAT A DEEPER ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE, THESE PRINCIPLES WERE UPHELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. 332 ITR 167 (DEL.) . THEREFORE WE NOTE THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED AND ENQUIRED ABOUT A SSESSEES ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT MERELY FOR REASON THAT COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH MANNER OF VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE HELD AS TO BE ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED A LIMITED SCRUTINY AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SPECIFIC ITA NO.300/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 7 77 7 DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THE SPECIFIC AND REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS AS MENTIONED IN THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED ABOVE. AFTER DOING DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE WE NOTE THAT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS. HENCE, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25.11. 2019 SD/- SD/ - ( N.K. CHOUDHRY ) (A.L.SAINI) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AMRITSAR AMRITSAR * / DATE: 25/11/2019 ( BCG, PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON, #16310, STREET NO. 1 3/5 DHILLON COLONY, BARNALA BYE PASS, BATHINDA. 2. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA (PUNJAB ). 3. C.I.T. 4. C.I.T.- CONCERNED. 5. THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AMRIT SAR BENCH