ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 306/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7383 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGGARWAL ADVS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 131; 148; 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES WARD 4(3), NEW DELHI LTD., ROOM NO. 413A, CR BLDG., FLAT NO. 112, PLOT NO. 9, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI LAXMI DEEP, DISTT. CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 92 (PAN:AAACL7598M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. JAMES SINGSON, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, & SOMI L AGGARWAL, ADVS. DATE OF HEARING : 12-05-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 20-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT A GAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI DA TED 27.11.2009 IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER DATED 15.12.2009 IN P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS, PERTAINING TO SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I .E. 2002-03. SINCE THE ISSUE ARE INTER-CONNECTED, HENCE, THESE APPEAL S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL NO. 306/DEL/2010:- ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND CON TRARY TO FACT AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 70,00,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BEI NG THE UNEXPLAINED / BOGUS CASH CREDIT AND RS. 70,000/- BE ING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAID FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL NO. 647/DEL/2010:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND CON TRARY TO FACT AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 25,23,990/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THAT THE ASSESSEE CO NCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY CLAIMING BOGUS EXPENSE S ON VARIOUS HEADS. ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 3 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. ITA NO. 306/DEL/2010 (AY 2002-03) 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.10.2002 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 7,271/-. THE SA ME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 13.2.2003 AT T HE RETURNED INCOME RESULTING INTO A REFUND OF RS. 13,225/-, WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT(INV,) REGARDING BENEFICIARIES AND OPERATIONS OF ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES IN DELHI THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS ISSUED NOTICE DA TED 5.3.2007 U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT TO REOPEN THE CASE. AS THE NOTICE W AS RECEIVED BACK, THE SAME WAS GOT SERVED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR AND NO TICE SERVER OF THE DEPARTMENT BY AFFIXTURE. LATER ON VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 12.11.2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FURN ISH THE CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS OF CONCERNED PARTIES AND THEIR INCO ME TAX RETURNS ALONGWITH ALL ANNEXURES. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE SERVI CE OF THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO MADE THROUGH NOTICE SERVER AND INSPECTOR BY AF FIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, WHICH WAS DONE AS PER THEIR REPORTED DATED 13.11.2007. SINCE THE CASE WAS TIME BARRING ONE, THE AO LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO FINALISE THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS U/S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE S HEET AS ON 31.3.2002 AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENHANCED ITS AUTHORI ZED SHARE CAPITAL FROM RS. 50 LACS TO RS. 2.25 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENHANCED ITS ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 4 ISSUE, SUBSCRIBED AND PAID UP CAPITAL FROM RS. 24,9 0,000/- TO RS. 2,04,90,000/-. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE T HE CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS OF CONCERNED PARTIES AND THEIR INCOME TA X RETURNS ALONGWITH ALL ANNEXURES IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES APPE ARING IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE FURNISHED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, HENC E, THE UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF RS. 70 LACS WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME AND RS. 70,000/- WAS ALSO ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AS COMMISSION PAID TO THE ENTRY OPERATORS BEING 1% OF THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME AND AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 70,77, 290/- U/S. 144/147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2007. 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 27.11.2009 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEL ETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 5 LD. CIT(A) IS A WELL REASONED ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD AND REVENUES APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED ACCORD INGLY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME VIDE PAR A NO. 5 TO 5.6 AT PAGES 9 TO 14 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER I.E. PARA NO. 5 TO 5.6 AS UNDER:- 5. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS/ SHARE APPLICA NTS, WERE FURNISHED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:- I) SHARE APPLICATION FORMS RECEIVED FROM THE SHAREHOLD ERS CONTAINING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF APPLICANTS WHICH INCLUDES NAME OF THE APPLICANTS, ADDRESS, PAN, ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS, NO. OF SHARES APPLIED, MODE OF PAYMENTS OF SHARE APPLICATION, DETAILS OF BANK OF S HARE HOLDERS, BRANCH, CHEQUE NO., DATED AND OCCUPATION O F APPLICANTS; II) COPIES OF MINUTES OF RESOLUTION OF THE SHARE APPLIC ANT COMPANIES AUTHORIZING TO MAKE INVESTMENT; ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 6 III) AFFIDAVITS FROM SHAREHOLDERS CONTAINMG THE COMPLETE DETAILS NUMBER, DATE, BANK PARTICULARS, PAN AND INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS; IV) CONFIRMATION FROM SHAREHOLDERS CONTAINING TH E COMPLETE DETAILS OF AMOUNT INVESTED, CHEQUE NUMBER, DATE, BA NK PARTICULARS, PAN AND INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS; V) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; VI) COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THESE COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEIR MASTER DATA WITH ROC AND VII) COPY OF SHARE REGISTER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY SHOWING ISSUE OF SHARES TO THESE COMPANIES. 5.1 THE COPIES OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EVIDENCES WER E SENT TO THE AO. I.E. ITO, WARD-4(3),NEW DELHI IN ORDER T O GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO HIM IN TERMS OF RULE-46A(3) OF THE L T. RULES, 1962 TO EXAMINE THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCES AND TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS ETC. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE T HE CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO., THE EVIDENCES FILED DURING THE - APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS WERE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN ITS RESPON SE A REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. ON 30-10-2009 WHEREIN OBJ ECTIONS HAVE RAISED AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 7 AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO WHICH HAS NOT BEEN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 AT THIS JUNCTURE, REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO RULE -46 WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTIT LED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ANY EV IDENCE OTHER THAN THAT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE AO., EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTION ED IN CLAUSE (A) TO (D). THESE CLAUSES DEAL WITH THE SITU ATIONS WHERE THE AO. HAD REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCES OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING SU CH EVIDENCES OR THE A.O. HAD NOT ALLOWED SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CIRCUMSTANCE S MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (B) TO (D) DO EXIST. THE AO. W AS ALSO GIVEN OPPORTUNITY IN TERMS OF RULE-46A (3) TO EXAMI NE THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCES BUT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PR ESUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OBJECTION AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON MERITS. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFIC ANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTIO N 144 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S WERE VERY VITAL & RELEVANT AND THEREFORE THEY WERE CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERSIGNED NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE ISSUE (RE LATING TO ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 8 THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL) INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED. 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE W RITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REM AND REPORT OF THE AO. REGARDING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM , IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED (I) THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS (II) THE GIR NOS. /P.A.N. NOS. (III) THE WARD NOS. WHERE ASSESSED (IV) THE MO DE OF PAYMENT AND (V) OTHER INFORMATION WHICH THE ASSESSE E KNOWS OR POSSESSES, THEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT INITIAL BURD EN ON THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE DISCHARGED. ONCE THE IDE NTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WAS ESTABLISHED IT ALSO STANDS EST ABLISHED THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE INVESTED MONEY IN THE PU RCHASE OF SHARES AND HENCE THE ONUS, ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY, IS DISCHARGED AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDI TION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY OR SHARE CAPITAL. RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT AND THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI:- I) CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (2008) 216 CTR ( SC) 195; ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 9 II) CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. (2007) 29 9 ITR 268 (DEL.). HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PARA 13 & 16 HA S HELD AS UNDER:- '13. THERE CANNOT BE TWO OPINIONS ON THE ASPECT THA T THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED MO NEY THROUGH THE MASQUERADE OR CHANNEL OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A COMPANY MUST BE FIRMLY EXCORIATE D BY THE REVENUE. EQUALLY, WHERE THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDEN CE INDICATES ABSENCE OF CULPABILITY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ASSESSEE IT SHOULD NOT BE HARASSED BY THE REVENUE'S INSISTENCE THAT IT SHOULD PROVE THE NEGATIVE. IN TH E CASE OF A PUBLIC ISSUE, THE COMPANY CONCERNED CANNOT BE EXPEC TED TO KNOW EVERY DETAIL PERTAINING TO THE IDENTITY AS WEL L AS FINANCIAL WORTH OF EACH OF ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THE COMPANY MUST, HOWEVER MAINTAIN AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR HIS PERUSAL, ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STATU TORY SHARE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE PLACE MENT THE LEGAL REGIME WOULD NO! BE THE SAME. A DELICATE BALA NCE MUST BE MAINTAINED WHILE WALKING THE TIGHTROPE OF SECTIO NS 68 AND 69 OF THE IT ACT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAN SELDOM BE DISCHARGED TO THE HILL BY THE ASSESSEE; IF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HARBOURS DOUBTS OF THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY SUBSCRIPTI ON HE IS EMPOWERED, NAY DUTY-BOUND, TO CARRY OUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS. BUT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO UNEARTH ANY ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 10 WRONG OR ILLEGAL DEALINGS, HE CANNOT OBDURATELY ADH ERE TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND TREAT THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE COMPANY. 16. IN THIS ANALYSIS, A DISTILLATION OF THE PRECEDE NTS YIELDS THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS OF LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC TION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE (1) THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR/SUB-SCRIBER: (2) THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, NAMELY: WHETHER IT HAS BEEN TRANSM ITTED THROUGH BANKING OR OTHER INDISPUTABLE CHANNELS; (3) THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER; (4) IF RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE ADDRESS OR PAN IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER ARE FURNISH ED TO THE DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS RE GISTER, SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, SHARE TRANSFER REGISTER ET C. IT WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCEPTABLE PROOF OR ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATI ON BY THE ASSESSEE. (5) THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE ONLY BECAUSE THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER FAILS OR NEGLECTS TO RESPOND TO ITS NOTICES; (6) THE ONUS WOULD NOT STAND DISCHARGED IF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER DENIES OR REPUDIATES THE TRANSA CTION SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE NOR SHOULD THE ASSESSING OFFICER TA KE SUCH REPUDIATION AT FACE VALUE ANDCONSTRUE IT, WITHOUT M ORE, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. (7) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY-BOUND TO INVESTIGATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR /SUBSCRIBER ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 11 THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE VERACITY OF THE REPUDIATION. ' III) CIT VS. VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (DEL.)- HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - '5. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, NAMELY, CIT V. STELLAR INVESTMENT LT D. (199I) 192 ITR 287 AND A FULL BENCH DECISION IN CIT V. SOP HIA FINANCE LTD. [J99-1} 205 ITR 98. SEVERAL OTHER DECI SIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THIS COURT FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS. THE PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOU S DECISIONS RENDERED BY THIS COURT FROM TIME TO TIME IS THAT IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS PROVED, NORMALLY NO F URTHER INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE APPLICANTS CAN NEVERTHELESS BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS QUITE OBVI OUS THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF STRANGERS. IF THE REVENUE HAS ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT, THEIR RETURNS MAY B E REOPENED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. IN ANY CASE, WHAT IS CLINCHING IS THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE REVENUE. IT MUST SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE APPLICAN T DOES NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT, THE INVESTME NT ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 12 MADE BY THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY EMANATED FROM THE CO FFERS OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO BE TREATED AS TH E UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS NOT BE EN DONE IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED AND THAT HA S BEEN NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. 8. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN DELETING TH E ADDITION: 9. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES'. IV) CIT VS. TDI MARKETING PVT. LTD, (2009) 26 DTR (DEL.) 358; AND V) BHAV SHAKTI STEEL MINES (P) LTD. VS. CRT (2009) 179 TAXMAN 25, WHEREIN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'IN ANY EVENT WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS (P.) LTD. [2008] 216 CTR 195 CONSIDERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SHARE APP LICATION MONEY CAN BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER S ECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSING THE SLP OBSERVED THAT IF THE SHARE MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO ASSESS TH EM INDIVIDUALLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE SUPREME C OURT DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT O F THE HIGH ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 13 COURT WHICH WAS A COMMON ORDER ALONG WITH THE DECIS ION IN CIT V. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. [2008} 299 ITR 268 (DELHI). SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) H AS NOT ONLY FOUND THAT THE IDENTITY OF EACH OF THE SHAREHO LDERS STOOD ESTABLISHED, BUT HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE FACT THAT EA CH OF THEM WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND HAD DISCLOSED THE SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY IN THEIR ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURN AS WELL AS IN THEIR BALA NCE SHEETS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SEE MERIT IN WHAT THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AND WE FEEL THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN THE RIGHT P ERSPECTIVE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DECIDE THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIB UNAL. 5.4 IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE APPELL ANT HAS GIVEN ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN ORDER TO ESTABLI SH THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS FAIR TO CONCLUDE T HAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE EXISTING PARTIES AND THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISCREPAN CY IN THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NEITH ER BROUGHT OUT ANY DIRECT OR INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE TO C ONTRADICT THE ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 14 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH AO. HAS VAST POWERS U/S 131 AND 133(6) OF TH E ACT, HE HAS NOT USED ANY OF HIS POWERS TO VERIFY THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY VERIFYING THE DOCUMENT S FURNISHED BY IT. IF AO HAD DOUBTED THE IMPUGNED TRA NSACTION AFTER RECEIVING THE EVIDENCES (IN THE REMAND PROCEE DINGS IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962) WHICH HAD BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM IT WAS VERY MUCH OPEN TO THE AO TO DO HIS INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE A.O . THOUGH, THE SHARE-APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE EXAMINED BY THE A O, SINCE THEY WERE EXISTING ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT AND THEIR INCOME-TAX DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO, IT WAS EQUALLY THE DUTY OF THE AO TO HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO VERIFY THEIR ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IF NECESSARY TO ALSO H AVE THEM EXAMINED BY THE RESPECTIVE AOS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEM (SHARE-APPLICANTS), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY HIM. 5.5 THE A.O. HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT ALL THE SHARE- APPLICANTS WERE ENTRY OPERATORS AS PER E INFORMATIO N AVAILABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. AS CONTEND ED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SUCH INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE TO REB UT THE ADVERSE MATERIAL ,IF ANY AND HE DID NOT AFFORD ANY OPPORTUNITY ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 15 OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF ALL THE ADVERSE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE IN FORMATION GATHERED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HIM UNLESS UNTIL AN OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTIN G THE SAME IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AGAINST THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND NAHTA V. UNION OF IN DIA [2001] 247 ITR 274 IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION TH AT CROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS IS MUST, BEFORE THE A.O. RELIES ON THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS FOR MAKING ADDITION. R ELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATHU RAM PREMCHAND V. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 56 1, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF A WITNESS, IF HIS WITNESS IS MATERIAL IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U NDER ORDER 16, R. 10 OF CPC AND WHERE THE OFFICER DOES NOT DO SO, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. RELIAN CE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT I.E. DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY GUPTA(2008) 303 ITR 95(DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON MERE ADVERSE STATEMENTS FROM OTHERS. SUCH STATEMENT BY ITSELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INFORMATION , UNLESS THE ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 16 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ENQUIRIES THEREON AND IN FERRED UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME. I AM THEREFORE INCLINED T O AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLAN T TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION, IF ,ANY, GATHERED BEHI ND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EX AMINATION CANNOT BE FULLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. 5.6 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.70,00,OO0 /- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ACCORDINGLY. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF C OMMISSION OF RS.70,000/- FOR OBTAINING THE SAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AS A RESULT, GROUND S NO. 5,6, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE ALLOWED. 9.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 BEFORE TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE F OLLOWING DOCUMENTS :- I) SHARE APPLICATION FORMS RECEIVED FROM THE SHAREHOLD ERS CONTAINING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF APPLICANTS WHICH INCLUDES NAME OF THE APPLICANTS, ADDRESS, PAN, ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS, NO. OF SHARES APPLIED, MODE OF PAYMENTS OF SHARE APPLICATION, DETAILS OF BANK OF S HARE ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 17 HOLDERS, BRANCH, CHEQUE NO., DATED AND OCCUPATION O F APPLICANTS; II) COPIES OF MINUTES OF RESOLUTION OF THE SHARE APPLIC ANT COMPANIES AUTHORIZING TO MAKE INVESTMENT; III) AFFIDAVITS FROM SHAREHOLDERS CONTAINMG THE COMPLETE DETAILS NUMBER, DATE, BANK PARTICULARS, PAN AND INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS; IV) CONFIRMATION FROM SHAREHOLDERS CONTAINING TH E COMPLETE DETAILS OF AMOUNT INVESTED, CHEQUE NUMBER, DATE, BA NK PARTICULARS, PAN AND INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS; V) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; VI) COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THESE COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEIR MASTER DATA WITH ROC AND VII) COPY OF SHARE REGISTER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y SHOWING ISSUE OF SHARES TO THESE COMPANIES. AFTER RECEIVING THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIV EN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME, BUT THE AO HAS NOT AVAILED T HE OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO HIM. AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL T HE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT( A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY HOLDING THAT ONCE THE IDENTI TY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS IS PROVED BY ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 18 FURNISHING ALL PARTICULARS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ALONGWITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED ITS ONUS AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IN THE MATTER OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR SHARE CAPITAL. THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS WELL AS THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (2008) 216 CTR 195 AND CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. (2007) 299 ITR 278 (DELHI HIGH COURT). IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITI ONS IN DISPUTE BY PASSING A WELL REASONED AND DETAILED ORDER WHILE RE LYING UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED ON OUR PART IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 647/DEL/2010 (AY 2002-03) 10. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) RELEVANT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) O F THE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 306/DEL/2010, AS AFORE SAID, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IN THIS CASE THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, NOTICE U/S. ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 19 274 R.W.S. 271 OF I.T. ACT, DATED 29.11.2007. HOWEV ER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THIS NOTICE. AGAIN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 13.5.2008 WAS ISSUED ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD AND TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT B E IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.5.2008. THIS SHOW CAUS E NOTICE WAS ALSO SERVED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR AND THE NOTICE SERVER THROUGH AFFIXTURE ON 13.5.2008. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS REMAINED UNCOMPLI ED WITH. AO OBSERVED THAT AS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE GOING TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.5.2008 AND NOTHING IS HEARD FROM T HE ASSESSEES SIDE TILL DATE, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE FINALI ZED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O OBSERVED THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND HAS CONCEALED THE MATERIAL FACTS RELATI NG TO COMPUTATION OF ITS CORRECT INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF THE UNEXPLAINED AM OUNT OF RS. 70 LACS, WHICH WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND COMMISSION AS RS. 70,000/- PAID FOR RAISING THIS AM OUNT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 25,23,990/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I .T. ACT BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.5.2 008. 11. AGAINST THE AFORESAID PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESS EE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.1 2.2009 WHO HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND ALLOWED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 20 12. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS A WELL REASONED ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD AND REVENUES APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED ACCORD INGLY. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. W E FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME VIDE PARA NO. 3 TO 5 AT PAGES 1 TO 2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER I.E. PAR A NO. 3 TO 6 AS UNDER:- 3. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AR AT THE TIME OF HE ARING THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN THE APPELLANTS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE UNDERSIGNED IN APPEAL NO. 40/2008-09 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 27.11.2009 WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF (A) RS. 70 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED BANK ENTRIES AND (B) RS. 70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION OR OBTAINING SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE LD. AR PLACED BEFORE ME A COPY OF AFOREMENTIO NED ORDER OF THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 21 PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DID NOT SURVIVE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHAL F OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED MY ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE. IT IS NOTICED T HAT IN PARA 5.6 OF THE SAID ORDER, I HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 5.6 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,00,000/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION OF RS. 70,000/- FOR OBTAINING THE SAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AS A RESULT, GROUND NOS. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 ARE ALLOWED. 5. AS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, THERE REMAINS NO BASIS TO UPHOLD THE PENALTY OF RS. 25,23,990/- I MPOSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 271(1)(C). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE AO STANDS CANCELLED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 25,23,990/- TO THE APPELLANT . 15.1 ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE, ON THE GROUND THAT QUANTUM ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED HAS BEEN DELETED BY HIM. THERE FORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE RAISED VIDE NO. 2, AND UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. ITA NOS. 306 & 647/DEL/2010 22 CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/06/2016. SD/- SD/- [J.S. REDDY] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/06/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES