M/s. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3076/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6523 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3076/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2001-02 STANDARD WATCH CO. (P) LTD, C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 4435/7, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI 110002 (PAN:AAGCS4701B) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJ KUMAR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 13.3.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LEVY OF PEN ALTY OF RS. 19,77,500/- U/S. 271(1) ON RS. 25,00,000/- FOR SHARE CAPITAL FROM M/S SHREE DINANATH LUHIWALA SPINNING M ILLS 2 (P) LTD. IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNS USTAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS. 2. THAT NO PROPER REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HA S BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1 ). 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LEVY OF PEN ALTY @200% IS VERY VERY EXCESSIVE AND WITHOUT ANY COGE NT REASON. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED H ERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE, SH. RAJ KUMAR, STATED THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4861/DEL/2 013, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE ITAT, G BENCH, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDE R DATED 30.5.2016. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT PENALTY BEING CONSEQUENTIA L, NEEDS TO BE DELETED/QUASHED. HE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF T HE ORDER DATED 30.5.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH G IN ITA NO.4861/ DEL/2013 (AY 2001-02) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4861 /DEL/2013 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2016, THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4861/DEL/2013, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE 3 I.T. ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE ITAT, G B ENCH, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2016. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS U NDER:- 4 HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 5. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R INITIATED REOPENING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED FRO M SHRI DINA NATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. NOTIC E UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26.3.2008 AFTER O BTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SEC. 151(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 09.04.2008 ADOPTED THE RETURN ALREADY FILED UNDER S EC. 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT THEREAFTER FRAMED UNDER SEC. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE ALREADY FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND REO PENING PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON 4 RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF T HE DEPARTMENT MAKING THE VAGUE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RECEIVED F ROM SHRI DINA NATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. D URING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS GIVEN APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 151 FOR INITIATIO N OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND W ITH SIMPLE REMARKS I AM SATISFIED. HE POINTED OUT TH AT REOPENING PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED IN THE PRE SENT CASE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS PER SECTION 151(1), NO NOTICE S HALL BE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT BY AN ASSESSING OF FICER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END O F THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIE F COMMISSIONER OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE RE ASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. HE CONTENDED THAT NO REASON H AS BEEN ASSIGNED AS TO HOW AND WHY LEARNED CIT IS SATISFIED . THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS CASE WAS EARLIER S ELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR VERIFICATION OF SHARE CAPITAL AND ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) WAS FRAMED AFTER DULY 5 EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL. HE REFERRED P AGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN COPY OF THE FORM FOR RECO RDING REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 148 A ND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. IN SUPPORT, HE PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. S. GOENKA LIME AND CHEMICALS LTD. (201 5) 64 TAXMAN.COM 313 (SC); II) UNITED ELECTRICAL CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT 258 IT R 317 (DEL.); III) CHUGANAL RAJPAL VS. S.P. CHALIHA & ORS. 79 I TR 603 (SC); IV) KANSAL FINCAP LTD. VS. ITO (ITA NO. 2661 & 2662/D/2013) DELHI ITAT D BENCH DATED 31.08.2015); V ) CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. SP CHALIHA & ORS 79 ITR 603 (SC); VI) ARJUN SINGH & ORS. VS. ADIT 246 ITR 363 (MP) ; VII) ITO VS. N.C. CABLES LTD. ITA NO. 4122/DEL/2 009 (DELHI ITAT ORDER DT. 22.10.2014); VIII) CENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. I TO 51 DTR 51 (DEL.) (H.C); 6 IX ) RAJ KISHORE PRASAD 88 CTR (ALL.) 152; X ) GERMAN REMEDIES LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (BOM.); XI) SHRI AMARLAL BAJAJ VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 611/MUM/2 004) ORDER DATED 24.07.2013. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS RAISE D IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2 HAS QUESTIONED T HE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT . IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT REOPENIN G PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE BASI S OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS INFORMED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT STATEMENTS OF SOME SHRI MAHESH GARG WERE RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING WHEREIN HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD FLOATED SEVERAL COMPANIES/ CONCERNS IN WHICH NO REAL BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED EXCEPT PROVIDI NG ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN LIEU OF CASH RECEIPTS. IT WA S INFORMED THAT DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. WAS AL SO ONE OF SUCH COMPANIES FLOATED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI MAHESH GAR G WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE DEALT WITH AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF BOGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SAID VAGUE INFORMATI ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED REASONS TO BELIEF FO R INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS. HE CONTENDED THAT SHRI MAHES H GARG IS 7 NOT A DIRECTOR OF DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILL S PVT. LTD. WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT WITH. SHRI VINOD G ARG WAS DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. NO STATEMENT OF SHRI VINOD GARG HAS BEEN RECORDED AND WHATEVER STATEMENTS OF SHRI MAHES H GARG WERE RECORDED, THESE WERE ON THE BACK OF ASSESSEE. NO OT HER MATERIAL WAS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF INITI ATING THE PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATI ON WING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TOOK UP ANY STEP EVEN TO VERIFY THE PRIMA FACIE CORRECTNESS OF CONTENTS OF REPORT OF THE INVE STIGATION WING AND HE HAS SIMPLY ACTED UPON THE INFORMATION WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF HIS MIND. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ONE: I) PRINCIPAL CIT VS. G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD. II) CIT VS. KHAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. & ORS. 248 CTR (DEL.) 33; III) CIT VS. ATUL JAIN & ORS. 299 ITR 383 (DEL.) ; IV) CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROOKING LTD.- 233 CTR (DEL . 69; V ) SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD.- 329 ITR 110 (DEL.); VI) CIT VS. SMT. PRAMJIT KAUR 311 ITR 38 ( P&H); 8. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO NOT VALID SINCE IT IS AMOUNTING TO 8 CHANGE OF OPINION THAT TOO AFTER FOUR YEARS WITH NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY AL L FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENTS. HE POINTED OUT THAT EARLIER ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFI CATION OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.3.03 CRORES WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF CA PITAL OF RS.25 LACS IN QUESTION IN THE PRESENT REASSESSMENT. THE I SSUE WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAG E NOS. 5 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF ORIGINAL ORDE R PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) DATED 25.2.2004, REASONS FOR SELECTION FOR SCRUTINY UNDER SEC. 143(3), QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.11.2003 D URING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, LETTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 7.1.2 004 DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, DETAILS OF FRESH SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED FILED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 7.1.2004; LETTERS DATED 15.1.2004 ETC. FILED DURING REASSESSMENT; APPLICATION FORM FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHA RES. THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR THE SAME SHARE CAPITAL WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ONLY ALLEGED ADVERSE MATERIAL FOR I NITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IS THE STATEMENT OF SOME SHRI MAHESH GARG WHICH WERE NEVER RECORDED NOR SHRI MAHESH GARG WAS EVER PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE HENC E SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. IN SUPPORT, HE PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) JSRS UDYOG LTD. 313 ITR 321 (DEL.); II) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 356 ITR 209 (DEL.); 9 III) CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. 348 ITR 485 (DEL.) FB; IV) BLV LTD. VS. ACIT 343 ITR 129 (DEL.); V ) CIT VS. SUREN INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. 357 ITR 24 (DEL.); VI) CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.- 320 ITR 561 (SC); 9. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN QUESTIONE D THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT IN ABSENCE OF ADJUDICATION OF OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS LA ID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVE S HAFT INDIA LTD.-259 ITR 19 (SC). 10. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH THE SUB MISSIONS THAT THERE WAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS IT HAS BEEN RECOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS TO BELIEF FOR INIT IATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEF ICIARIES OF BOGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, DETAILS OF WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTME NT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE SAID INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED HIS BELIE F THAT THE INCOME PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 UNDER CON SIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25 LACS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SH E SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS , ONLY PRIMA FACIE BELIEF IS FORMED WHICH IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO FRAMING OF FINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 147 READ WITH 143(3) OF THE A CT. THE LEARNED CIT HAD ALSO GIVEN HIS APPROVAL ON THE REAS ONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS AFTER APPLI CATION OF HIS 10 MIND. HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ACCORDINGLY GIVEN HIS REMARKS I AM SATISFIED. 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE DEFINITEL Y FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATE RIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YE AR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS INITIATED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEAR S FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 143(3) WAS ALREADY FRAMED ON THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL. H AVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW THAT FAILURE OR OMISSION ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY MATERIAL FACT IS A JURI SDICTIONAL PRE- CONDITION WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR VALID INITIAT ION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND STRENGTH FROM THE RECENT DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASES OF BLV LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND CIT V S. SUREN INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. (SUPRA). IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION OVER HERE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS FRAMED ON 25/2/2004 AND VIDE LETTER DATED 10.10 .2002 APPROVAL FOR SELECTION OF SCRUTINY IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE WAS OBTAINED ON SEVERAL POINTS INCLUDING SHARE CAPITAL INCREASE FROM RS.10,500 TO RS.3,03,10,500. DETAILS OF FRESH SUBSC RIBERS, THEIR ADDRESSES, INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS, MODE OF PAYMENTS ETC. WERE ALSO ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO FRESH SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, VIDE LETTER DATED 12.11.2003 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD 11 FURNISHED THE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 07.01.2004. FURTHER QUERY WAS ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TIME TO TI ME WHICH WAS RESPONDED TO AND THEREAFTER ONLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE REASONS RECORDED FO R THE REOPENING IN QUESTION, NOWHERE IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT THERE WA S FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND THE REOPENING HAS BEEN INITIATED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTM ENT THAT AS PER THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI VINOD GARG, THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF BOGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THAT TOO WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAM INE THE SAID PERSON OR CONFRONTING WITH THE SAID STATEMENTS, IF ANY. WE THUS FIND THAT THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEE DINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT VALID ON BOTH THE ABOVE COUNTS . FIRSTLY, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASO NS RECORDED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THEIR PART TO DISCLOSE FULLY A ND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT AND SEC ONDLY THE REASONS RECORDED WERE VAGUE. THE ASSESSEE THUS SUCC EEDS ON BOTH THE COUNTS AND THE RESPECTIVE GROUND NUMBERS 2 AND 3 IN THIS REGARD ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH T HIS FINDING THAT THE INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRES ENT CASE WAS NOT VALID AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION FRAMED IN FURTHERANCE THERETO IS ALSO NOT VALID. THE ASSESSMENT IMPUGNED IS THUS HELD AS VOID AB INITIO AND IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS HAVE BEC OME INFRUCTUOUS AND THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISPO SED OFF. 12 5.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4861/DEL/2013, THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE ITAT, G BENCH, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2016, H ENCE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE WILL NOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND ALLOW T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/12/2016. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 14/12/2016 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 13