IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.3160/DEL/201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SMT. PHOOL BINDRA C/O M.K. BHATT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 302, TRIVENI COMPLEX, E-10/12 JAWAHAR PARK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110 092 PAN-AFIPB 5122R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. M.K. BHATT, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2021 HEARING CONDUCT ED VIA WEBEX ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 OF CIT(A) -15, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED. THE CHALLENGE VIA THE GROUNDS RAISED IS ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED AS WELL AS ON THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT BEFOR E THE CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICT ION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CHALLENGE WAS LIMITED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF ITA NO.3160 /DEL/ 2019 SMT. PHOOL BINDRA VS . ITO PAGE 2 OF 3 SECTION 147/148/153C. THE SAID CHALLENGE HAS BEEN D ISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE CHALLENGE POSED ON THE LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE TH E CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NO. 3 WAS FURTHER ELABORATED IN THE APPEAL FILED. SPEC IFIC ISSUES ARE RAISED HEREIN ALLEGING LACK OF JURISDICTION ALSO ON THE GROUNDS O F BORROWED SATISFACTION VIDE GROUND NO.1; LACK OF APPROPRIATE APPROVALS U/S 151 VIDE GROUND NO.2; ALLEGING USE OF MATERIAL NOT CONFRONTED TO HIM VIDE GROUND N O. 4 AND NOT PROVIDING A COPY OF REASONS RECORDED VIDE GROUND NO. 6 APART FR OM THE CHALLENGE ON THE ADDITION SUSTAINED ON MERITS. THE NUANCED JURISDIC TION CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ELABORATION OF THE GENERAL GROUND S RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 AND 3 BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS SEEN THAT THE CHALLENGE POSED TO THE PROCEEDI NGS ON THE ISSUES SET OUT IN GROUNDS TO 1 AND 3 BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING THEREON. THE CHALLENG E POSED TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BEING A LEGAL GROUND AND ITS ELABORATI ON IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW. HOWEV ER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING ON THESE ISSUES FOR WANT OF SPECIF IC CHALLENGE AFTER HEARING PARTIES IT WAS DEEMED TO APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IN TOTO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT, THE ASSE SSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE , IN ITS OWN INTERESTS, IS ITA NO.3160 /DEL/ 2019 SMT. PHOOL BINDRA VS . ITO PAGE 3 OF 3 DIRECTED TO ENSURE THAT THE LEGAL CHALLENGE POSED T O THE JURISDICTION IS PROPERLY ARGUED ON ALL PARAMETERS ADDRESSING RELEVANT FACTS ETC. FOR A DECISION AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE CONSEQUENTLY SHOULD ENSURE FULL AND PR OPER PARTICIPATION AND NOT TO ABUSE THE TRUST REPOSED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNC ED AT THE TIME OF VIRTUAL HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES WEBEX . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- (D IVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/09/2021 PK/PS *KAVITA ARORA, SPS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI