Sh. Swati Pawa, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3098/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5211 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 250

Judgement Text

FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 1 OF 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 3098/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MS. SWATI PAWA, D- 842, 2 ND FLOOR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110065. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AFKPP3086Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-27, NEW DELHI, [LD. CIT(A) FOR SHORT], DATED 31.03.2016, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEANED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER IN UTTER D ISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 2 OF 16 PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE AC T BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT EX PARTE, VIOLATING THE PRI NCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS OVERLOOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, AS THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS NON SPEAKING AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY PROPER OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS IGNORED VARIOUS JUDICIAL RULINGS, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 250(6) MAKES IT OBLIGATORY FOR THE CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER DECIDING THE POINTS RAISED IN APPEAL, STATING HIS REASONS FOR THE DECIS ION, AS SUCH. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT EX PARTE, AS DU E APPEARANCE WAS CAUSED BY THE COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE- APPELLANT, HOWEV ER, NO ORDER SHEET ENTRIES WERE MADE SIGNED BY HER AND AS SUCH, DUE CO MPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 12,16,66,071/-, AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCO ME OF RS. 16,66,071/- IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 28.03.2013 UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) /153A OF THE ACT. 5.1 THAT IN DOING SO, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, AS ADDITION SO MADE IS NOT BASED O N ANY DOCUMENT/ MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, THUS, THE ADD ITION SO MADE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED, AS SUCH. 5.2 THAT FURTHER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ADDITION SO MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND BY ARB ITRARILY BRUSHING ASIDE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCES/MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WHICH WERE FURNISHED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT NO ADDI TION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE INSTANT CASE. (2) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I.T. ACT FOR SHORT) WAS PASSED ON 28/03/2013, IN WHICH THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO, FOR SHORT): FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 3 OF 16 INCOME AS RETURNED - RS. 16,66,071/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PADDY - RS. 12,00 ,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 12,16,66,071/- (3) THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH HEARING NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SHE CONCLUDED THAT NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY KEEPING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING INDEFINITELY . SHE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SHE DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS I N HER AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/03/2016: 4.1 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES (LISTED ABOVE) TO REPRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY BUT NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR F ILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SPEED POST FOR WHICH IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECEIVED THEM WITHIN 3 DAYS. BUT SHE NEVER FI LED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION NOR APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF THE INDIFF ERENT APPROACH, I FIND THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY KEEPING THE APPEA L PROCEEDINGS PENDING INDEFINITELY. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4.2 FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 51(1)(C), THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AN A PPEAL IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS IN THE APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT . IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS ENOUGH GROUND OF NON APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER EX-PARTE, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. (3.1) THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT), AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/03/2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND FROM THE FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 4 OF 16 PERUSAL OF RECORD, THAT THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 1. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-09, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DETERMI NING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 12,16,66,071/- AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 16,66,071/- IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/153A OF TH E ACT DATED 28.03.2013. 2. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING TO THE ASS ESSEE, A FAIR, PROPER AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, VIOLATING TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS VITIATED BOTH O N FACT AND IN LAW. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE AC T, AND MAKING THE ADDITIONS TO THE DECLARED INCOME WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC SHO W CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,00,00,000/ -. THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED THUS BEING IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HENCE I S UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE ADDITION SO MADE OF RS. 12,00,00,000/'- ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED HAVING UNILATERALLY BEEN MADE. 2.2 THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 28TH MARCH, 2013 IS LIABLE TO BE HELD -AS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT AS THE EFFECTIVE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED ONLY IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2013, DELIBERATELY LEAVING NO TIME WITH THE ASSESSE E TO EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN SO DOING, THE LEARNED DC IT'S ATTEMPT WAS TO HURRY UP WITH THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AND TO THUS MAKE AN ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT, AND HENCE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 12,00,00,000/ - ON THE BASIS OF PAG E 17 OF ANNEXURE A-7 ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE DISRE GARDING THE FACT THAT AFORESAID DOCUMENT WAS GOT WRITTEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H UNDER THE DURESS AND OTHERWISE TOO, IT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE CONTENT S OF THE SAID DOCUMENT THAT SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE NORMAL COUR SE OF HUMAN CONDUCT AND IS ALSO VAGUE AND LOOK AND CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENT SHO WS THAT IT IS AGAINST THE HUMAN PROBABILITY. 3.1 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH ON 14.09.2010 UNDER DURESS AND THREAT, WAS DULY RETRACTED IMMEDIA TELY AFTER THE SEARCH ON 20.09.2010, STATING THAT THE SURRENDER MADE WAS UND ER THE THREAT AND DURESS OF INVESTIGATION WING AND WAS NOT VOLUNTARY, AND AMOUN T AS WELL AS THE NAME OF THE ALLEGED FARMERS ARE FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION OF THE I NVESTIGATION WING, AND APPELLANT FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 5 OF 16 HAS NEITHER ADVANCED ANY SUCH SUM FOR THE PURCHASE OF PADDY NOR ANY-SUCH FARMER IS KNOWN TO EXIST IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT , AS SUCH ADDITION MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR MAT ERIAL IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.2 THAT IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ALLEGATION THAT APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO THE FARMERS IS WHOLLY VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ALLEGED FARMERS AS SUC H, ADDITION MADE IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.3 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SATISH PA WA RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 14.09.2010, WHICH STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER DURESS AND THREAT, WAS DULY RETRACTED ON 20.09.2010, STATING THAT THE SURR ENDER MADE WAS UNDER THE THREAT AND DURESS OF INVESTIGATION WING AND WAS NOT VOLUNT ARY, AS SUCH, ADDITION MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC E OR MATERIAL, AND ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WHICH WAS DULY RETRACTED IS UNSUSTAINA BLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.4 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT IF CONFESS IONAL STATEMENT IS RETRACTED, THEN UNLESS THERE IS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL . TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONFESSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT, ADDITION MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A CONFESSION IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.5 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT ON ONE HAND HE IS MAKING ADDITI ON IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE FARMERS FOR THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF PADD Y, ON THE OTHER HAND NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NOR ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION WAS MADE THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, AS SUCH, APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS CONTRADICTORY AND ADDITION MADE IS UNSUSTAINABLE AN D UNTENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 3.6 THAT THELEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132( 4A) OF THE ACT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE BUT IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION, AND ONCE SUCH A PRESUM PTION IS REBUTTED, ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFO RE MAKING THE ADDITION. 3.7 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS DULY S TATED THAT PAGE 17 OF ANNEXURE A- 7 WAS WRITTEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WAS F ORCED TO WRITE ON SUCH PAPER UNDER DURESS, AS SUCH, BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION, BURDEN WAS ON THE REVENUE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO CORROBORATE THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID PAPER, AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL, ADDITION MADE IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DEL ETED. 3.8 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 6 OF 16 APPRECIATE APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SURRENDER BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, WHICH IS IN COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF THE INSTRUCTION DATED 10TH MAR CH, 2003 VIDE NO. F NO. 286/2/2003/IT (INV), ISSUED BY THE CBDT, AS SUCH, R ELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON THE AFORESAID SURRENDER BY THE APPELLANT IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. . 3.9 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT APPELLANT DOES NOT PURCHASE PADDY D IRECTLY FROM THE FARMERS BUT IT PURCHASES ONLY FROM THE MANDI AND BROKERS IN DELHI, PUNJAB, HARYANA AND UP AS SUCH, ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING MADE IN PA GE 17 OF ANNEXURE A-7, IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO FARMERS FOR THE PURCHAS E OF PADDY IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.10 THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT ON 8TH MARCH, 2013 DULY APPEARED ALONGWITH ORIGINAL SAMPLE INVOICES FOR THE PURCHASE OF PADDY ALONGWITH THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2013, HOWEVE R ON THE SAID, DATE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DID NOT SEE THE D OCUMENTS BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT, NOR ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES HE DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS, AS SUCH, ADVERSE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH INTEREST IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTA NCE CASE, LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE AS SESSMENT SO MADE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT BE FURTHER HELD THAT ADDIT ION MADE OF RS. L2,00,00,000/- IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE THE ADDITI ON SO MADE ALONG-WITH INTEREST LEVIED BE KINDLY DELETED AND APPEAL OF THE APPELLAN T BE KINDLY ALLOWED. (3.2) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS OF THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL THRO UGH A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE VARIOUS POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 7 OF 16 ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF ITAT ORDER DATED 19/0 4/2017 PASSED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN ITA NO. 2425/DEL/2016 IN TH E CASE OF GANPATI FINSEC PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTION. THE LD. CIT(DR), ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX PARTE ORDER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AVAILED OF NUME ROUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(DR) RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF PR COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX-3 VS. ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR IN R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2018 AN D R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1161 OF 2018. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THERE FORE, SHOULD BE UPHELD. (4) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PATIENTLY. WE HAVE PERUS ED ALL MATERIALS ON OUR RECORDS CAREFULLY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO IN THE RECORDS. WE HAVE ALSO FACTORED IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES, I.E. ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 OF THE AO AND THE IMPUGNED APPELLA TE ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A). ON PERUSAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH WE HAVE REPRODUCED ALREADY IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH N O. (3) OF THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, HAS BEEN PASSED IN A SUMMARY MANNER, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SPE AKING ORDER ON THE VARIOUS POINTS (INCLUDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS ALREADY REPRODU CED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (3.1) OF THIS ORDER) THAT AROSE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER I.T. ACT REGARDING PROCEDURE IN APPEAL, AND P OWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 8 OF 16 [APPEALS] ARE CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 250 AND 251 OF I.T. ACT, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 250. (1) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL FIX A DAY AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AND SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE SAME TO TH E APPELLANT AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHOSE ORDER THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED . (2) THE FOLLOWING SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL (A) THE APPELLANT EITHER IN PERSON OR BY AN AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE; (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY A REPRESENTATIVE. (3) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ADJOURN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL FROM TIME TO TIME. (4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, BEFORE DISPOSIN G OF ANY APPEAL, MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT, OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS). (5) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, AT THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL, ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO GO INTO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL NOT SPECI FIED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIED THAT THE OM ISSION OF THAT GROUND FROM THE FORM OF APPEAL WAS NOT WILFUL OR UNREASONABLE. (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATIO N, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. [(6A) IN EVERY APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE, MAY HEAR AND DECIDE SUCH APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 246A (7) ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL COMMUNICATE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. 251. ( 1) IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS (A) IN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, MAY CONFI RM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUAL THE ASSESSMENT (AA) IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN R ESPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ABATES UNDER SECTI ON 245HA, HE MAY, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MATERIAL AND OTHE R INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE, OR THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY HELD OR EVIDENCE RECORDED BY, THE FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 9 OF 16 SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEED ING BEFORE IT AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON HIS RECORD, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT; (B) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALT Y, HE MAY CONFIRM OR CANCEL SUCH ORDER OR VARY IT SO AS EITHER TO ENHANCE OR TO REDUCE THE PENALTY; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS IN T HE APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT. (2) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR A PENALTY OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REFUND UNLESS THE APPELLANT HA S HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCT ION. EXPLANATION.IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) MAY CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE P ROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT S UCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BY THE APPELLANT. SE MORE (4.1) A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF LAW SHOWS THA T U/S 250(6) OF I.T. ACT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OBLIGED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRIT ING AFTER STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND TO THEN PASS AN ORDER ON EACH OF THE POINTS WHICH AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION; AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FURTHER OBLIG ED TO STATE THE REASONS FOR HER DECISION ON EACH SUCH POINTS WHICH AROSE FOR DETERM INATION. THE LD. CIT(A) IS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL THROUGH A SPEAKING O RDER ON MERITS , ON ALL THE POINTS WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IN THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING ON ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE PERUSAL OF SECTION 251(1)(A) AND (B) OF I.T. ACT AND THE FURTHER PERUSAL OF EXPLANATION OF SECTION 251(2) OF I.T. ACT SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO APPLY HER MIND TO ALL THE ISSUES WHICH ARISE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE HER, WHETHER OR NOT THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HER . IF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS IS A SUMMARY FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 10 OF 16 ORDER; AS WE HAVE HELD IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (3) OF THIS ORDER; IT AMOUNTS TO NON- APPLICATION OF MIND. THIS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND IS A CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY ROLE OF LD. CIT(A) U/S 251(2) OF I.T. ACT . ALSO, SECTION 251(1)(A) OF I.T. ACT PROVIDES THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL AGAI NST ASSESSMENT ORDER, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY, THE SECTION 251(1) (B) PROVIDES THAT IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY CONF IRM OR CANCEL SUCH ORDERS OR VARY IT SO AS TO EITHER TO ENHANCE OR TO REDUCE THE PENA LTY. IF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS IS A SUMMARY ORDER; AS WE HAVE HELD IN TH E FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (3) OF THIS ORDER; IT AMOUNTS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF REDUCING / ENHANCING / ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING / VARYING THE PENALTY, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THIS NON-APPLICATIONS OF MIND IS A CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY ROLE OF LD. CIT(A) U/S 251(1)(A) OR 25 1(1)(B) OF I.T. ACT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. ON CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 2 50(6) READ WITH SECTIONS 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(A), 251(1)(B) AND EX PLANATION OF SECTION 251(2) OF I.T. ACT , WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION OF APPEAL AND IS OBL IGED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. (4.2) ONCE THE ASSESSEE FILES AN APPEAL U/S 246A OF I.T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE SETS IN MOTION THE MACHINERY DESIGNED FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL UNDER SECTIONS 250 AND 251 OF I.T. ACT. IF THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FULFILS FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 11 OF 16 THE REQUIREMENTS OF MAINTAINABILITY AND ADMISSIBILI TY PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTIONS 246, 246A, 248 AND 249 OF I.T. ACT; NEITHE R THE ASSESSEE CAN STOP THE FURTHER WORKING OF THAT MACHINERY AS A MATTER O F RIGHT, BY WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL, OR BY NOT PRESSING THE APPEAL, OR BY NO N-PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL; NOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CIT(A) I N THIS CASE, CAN HALT THIS MACHINERY BY IGNORING EITHER THE PROCEDURE IN APPEA L PRESCRIBED U/S 250 OF I.T. ACT OR POWERS OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PRESCR IBED U/S 251 OF I.T ACT. CIT(A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT DISMIS S ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS, IN A SUMMARY MANNER, WITHOUT DECIDING THE A PPEAL ON MERITS THROUGH AN ORDER IN WRITING, STATING THE POINTS OF DETERMIN ATION IN THE APPEAL, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION . IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT POWERS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH POWERS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO ORDER OF APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE 53 ITR 225 (SC) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT AAC HAS PLENARY POWERS IN DISPOSING OFF AN APPEAL; THAT THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THA T OF THE ITO, THAT HE CAN DO WHAT THE ITO CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE FAILED TO DO. IN THIS CONTEXT, USEFUL REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO APEX COURTS DECISION S IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA 66 ITR 443 AND CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE 118 ITR 461 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AN ASSESSEE HAVING ONCE FILED AN APPEAL, CANNOT WITHDRAW IT AND EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE REFUSES TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN PROCEED WITH THE ENQUIRY AND IF HE FINDS THAT FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 12 OF 16 THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDER-ASSESSMENT, HE CAN ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. JUST AS, ONCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SET IN MOTION, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO NOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW RETURN OF INCOME; IT IS SIMILA RLY, BY ANALOGY, NOT OPEN FOR LD. CIT(A) TO NOT PASS ORDER ON MERITS ON ACCO UNT OF NON-PROSECUTION OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE OR IF THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL OR IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS THE APPEAL. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISMISSES THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE; IN EFFECT, INDIRECTLY IT LEADS TO SAME RESULTS AS WITH DRAWAL OF APPEAL BY ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEA L FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DUTY BOUND TO NOT ALLOW A SITUATION TO ARISE, THROUGH DISMISSAL OF APPEAL IN A SUMMARY MANNER; IN WHICH, IN EFFECT, INDIRECTLY THE SAME RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AS ARISE FROM WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. WHAT CANNOT B E PERMITTED IN LAW TO BE DONE DIRECTLY, CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE DONE INDIR ECTLY EITHER. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION; AND ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF SEC TION 250(6) R.W.S. 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(A), 251(1)(B) AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 251( 2) OF I.T. ACT; IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM ORDER OF HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREMKUMAR ARJUNDAS LUTHRA (HUF) [2016] 240 TAXMAN 133 FOR THE PROPOSITIONS THAT LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO APPLY H IS MIND TO ALL ISSUES WHICH ARISE FROM FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 13 OF 16 IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE HIM WHETHER OR NOT SAME HAD B EEN RAISED BY APPELLANT BEFORE HIM; AND THAT CIT(A) IS OBLIGED TO DISPOSE OF THE A PPEAL ON MERITS. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 8 IT IS VERY CLEAR ONCE AN APPEAL IS PREFERRED B EFORE THE CIT(A), THEN IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, HE IS OBLIGED TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY THAT HE THINKS FIT OR DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQ UIRY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO HIM AS FOUND IN SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT. FURTHER SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT OBLIGES THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF AN APPEAL IN W RITING AFTER STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND THEN RENDER A DECISION ON EACH OF THE POINTS WHICH ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION WITH REASONS IN SUPPORT. SECTION 251( 1)(A) AND (B) OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEAL THE CIT(A) WOULD HAV E THE POWER TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL AN ASSESSMENT AND/OR PENALTY. BESI DES EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR T HAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL, THE CIT(A) WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM IN APPEAL FILED FOR ITS CONS IDERATION, EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). THUS ONCE AN ASSESSEE FILES AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM AS OF RIGHT TO WITHDRAW OR NOT PRESS THE APPEAL. IN FACT THE CIT(A ) IS OBLIGED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IN FACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE , 2001 THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RE STORE IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER STANDS WITHDRAWN. THEREFO RE, IT WOULD BE NOTICED THAT THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. HE CAN DO ALL THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COULD DO. THEREFORE JUST AS IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO NOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL TO WITHDRAW AND/OR THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PROS ECUTION OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE SECTION 251( 1)(A) AND (B) AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRES THE CIT(A) TO APPLY HIS MIND TO ALL THE ISSUES WHICH ARISE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE H IM WHETHER OR NOT THE SAME HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. ACCORD INGLY, THE LAW DOES NOT EMPOWER THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PR OSECUTION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. (5) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), OR NOT; WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED W ITH THE NOTICES OF THE LD. CIT(A)OR NOT; WHETHER THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 14 OF 16 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR NOT; WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) OR NOT; PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) AND SECTION 251 OF I.T. ACT CONTINUE TO HAVE APPLICATION; AND T HE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT DISREGARD HER STATUTORY ROLE UNDER THESE PROVISIONS . THUS, THE DISCUSSION IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (4), (4.1) AND (4.2) OF THIS ORDER HAVE RELEVANCE EVEN IN A CASE, LIKE THE CASE BEFORE US, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEIT HER ATTENDED THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SHOWED INDIFFERENT APPROACH, LEADING THE LD. CIT(A) TO PASS EX-PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF NON- APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT. (6) IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (4), (4.1), (4.2) AND (5) OF THIS ORDER; WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS IN A SUMMARY MANNER, WITHOUT GIVING DETAI LED REASONS FOR HER ORDER, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HER. WE FURTHER H OLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH OF THE POINTS WHICH AROSE FOR HER CONSIDERATION AND SHE FAILED IN DISCHARGING THE STATUTORY OBLIGAT ION TO STATE THE REASONS FOR HER DECISION ON EACH SUCH POINTS, WHICH AROSE FOR DETER MINATION IN ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IF LD. CIT(A) PASSES A SUMMARY ORDER ON MERITS; IT AMO UNTS TO CONTRAVENTIONS OF STATUTORY ROLE OF LD. CIT(A) AS P RESCRIBED U/S 250(6) AND SECTION 251 OF I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 OF LD. CIT(A); AND WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT (A) TO PASS DENOVO ORDER AS PER LAW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 250 AND 251 OF I.T . ACT, FOR FRESH DISPOSAL OF APPEAL FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 15 OF 16 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2013. (6.1) IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSH RA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06.02.2019 POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI FIT FOR PUBLICATION ITA NO.- 3098/DEL/2016. SD/- (AM) SD/-(JM) SWATI PAWA. PAGE 16 OF 16 DATE OF DICTATION 04/02/19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 05/02/19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER