JCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3172/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2986 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Accommodation entries; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.3171 TO 3172/DEL/2011 A.YRS. : 2001-02 TO 2002-03 JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, ROOM NO. 331, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI VS. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD. E-3, 1 ST FLOOR, PHASE-II, MANGOLPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI -34 (PAN: AACCA4321K) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 274 TO 275/DEL/2011 IN I.T.A. NO S . 317 1 TO 31 72 /DEL/201 1 A.YRS. 2001-02 TO 2002-03 ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD. E-3, 1 ST FLOOR, PHASE-II, MANGOLPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI -34 (PAN: AACCA4321K) VS. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, ROOM NO. 331, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJIV SAXENA, ADV. & SH. SHYAM SUNDER, ADV. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AND ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 20 02-03 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND CROS S OBJECTIONS ARE 2 COMMON, HENCE, THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WER E HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 317 1/DEL/2011 (2001-2002) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LA W AND FACTS. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 3,27,60,00/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,67,163/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. IN OTHER APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES, HENCE, THE GROUNDS O F OTHER APPEALS ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJE CTION 274/DEL/2011 IN ITA NO. 3171/DEL/2011 (2001-2002) R EAD AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A/ 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS LEGAL, WHEN CONSEQUENT UPON ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2007 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED OUT AND NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND, AND RE- VISITING THE ISSUES, WHICH HAVE BEEN SETTLED EARLIER, IS PERMISSIBLE. 2. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS SO VULNERABLE ON BOTH THE FACTS AS WELL AS LAWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO OPTION BUT TO CORRECT THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ADDITION, MODIFICATION, ALTERATION, AMENDMENT OF ANY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. 5. IN OTHER CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE GR OUNDS ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF OTHER CROSS OBJEC TION ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 36,27,660/- ON 23 .11.2006. THE SAME 4 WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) AT THE RETURNED INCOME. IN T HIS CASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2007 IN SURYA VINAYAK GROUP OF CASES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES OF M/S SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. THE GROUP IS HEADED BY SH. SANJAY JAIN AND HIS BROTHER SH. RAJIV JAIN, RES IDENT OF I-42, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI. THE MAIN ALLEGATION AGA INST THIS GROUP WAS THAT THEY HAD TAKEN A LARGE NUMBER OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES BY PAYING CASH TO THE VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATORS. AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION NOTE, A NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29.9.2008 TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT TO FILE T HE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSES SEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 07.10.2009 SUBMITTED THAT THE PREVIOUS RETURN DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 36,27,660/- FILED ON 28.11.2003 MAY K INDLY BE DEEMED AS THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 15.9.2009 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE FIXING THE CASE FOR 25.9.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTO RY NOTICES U/S. 142(1) & 143(2) OF THE ACT AND QUESTIONNAIRE, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DET AILS. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS ASSESSED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,28,13,060/- AFTER MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24.12.20 09 PASSED U/S. 153C/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 5 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24. 12.2009, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.3.2011 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESEEE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL AND ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 7. AT THE THRESHOLD, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS INVOLVED THE LEGAL ISSUE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE FIRST DECIDED. HENCE, WE FIRST DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION AND ADJUDICATE UPON THE LEGAL ISSUE. 8. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DRAW OUR ATT ENTION TOWARDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STAT ED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RELATING TO UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE O RDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 153C/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 2 5.3.2011, IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION DA TED 29.8.2017 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY REPORTED IN (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECIS IONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED IN THE CASE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 V S. INDEX SECURITIES (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD T HAT IF THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE, BUT NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION, THEN THESE ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABL E IN THE EYES OF LAW. 6 HE FURTHER STATED IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS MA DE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF THE SEARCH IN RESPECT OF SUCH ADDITION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT T HE ADDITIONS HAVE NO RELATION WITH ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND AS SUCH ARE BAD IN LAW BE ING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE I.T. ACT AND THER EFORE STATED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, IS BAD IN LAW AN D IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C HAS RIGHTLY BEEN APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THEM. HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURTS AND HENCE, REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE M AY BE DISMISSED. - PR. CIT V INSTRONICS LTD.(2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 357 (DELHI) - GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES (P) LTD. V CIT (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 408 (DELHI). - CIT V SUPER MALLS (P) LTD.(2016) 76 TAXMANN.COM (DE LHI) - PCIT V NAU NIDHI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.(ITA NO. 58/2017)(DELHI) - SSP AVIATION LTD V DCIT (20 TAXMANN.COM 214) (DELHI ) - KAMLESHBHAIDHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL V CIT (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 50 (GUJRAT) - RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI V ACIT(2016) 76 TAXMANN.CO M 311 (GUJARAT) - CIT V CLASSIC ENTERPRISES 35 TAXMANN.COM 244 (ALLA HABAD) 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE 7 CASES REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(DR). WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BECAUSE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SO AS TO DOUBT THE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS NOTE D THAT IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY SE IZED MATERIAL OR OTHER MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVING BE ING FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, LEAVE AL ONE THE QUESTION OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. CIT(DR) ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS BASED UPON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND HENCE, THE ADDITIONS M ADE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS NOW NO MORE RES-INTEGRA, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION DATED 29 .08.2017 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPO RTED IN (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED IN THE CASE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 VS. INDEX S ECURITIES (P) LTD. - THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN 8 (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEADS NOTES):- SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SEAR CH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PER SON (VALIDITY OF NOTICE) ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WHETHER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C , INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERT AIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION HELD, YES WHETH ER WHERE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM RESIDENCE OF PRESIDENT OF ASSESSEE, AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INDICATING CAPITATION FEES RECEIVED BY VARIOUS INST ITUTIONS RUN BY ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH CO-RELATION DOCUM ENT- WISE WITH ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION, NOTICE ISSU ED UNDER SECTION 153C HAD RIGHTLY BEEN QUASHED AND SET ASIDE HELD, YES (IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE). - THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ITA NOS. 707, 7 09 AND 713 OF 2014 OF DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION TH AT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: 9 I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF T HE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEAR CH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUC H AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A Y IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WIL L BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTH ER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE 10 AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT D OES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ITA NOS. 707, 709 AND 713 OF 2014 OF ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTIO N ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABAT ED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEAR CH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERN ED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ON E. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EA CH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND A NY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WI TH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 3 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 11 UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005 - 06 AND 2006-07.ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEA RCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. - THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDEX SECURITIES LTD. 86 TAXMANN.COM 84 (DELHI) HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEADS NOTES) :- SECTION 153COF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - SEARCH AN D SEIZURE - ASSESSMENT OF ANY OTHER PERSON (CONDITION PRECEDENT - POSITION PRIOR TO 1-6-2015) - ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 - WHETHER ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C (PRIOR TO ITS AMEND MENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1-6-2015) QUA 'OTHER PERSON' IS TH AT SEIZED DOCUMENTS FORMING BASIS OF SATISFACTION NOTE 12 MUST NOT MERELY 'PERTAIN' TO OTHER PERSON BUT MUST BELONG TO 'OTHER PERSON' - HELD, YES - WHETHER IN O RDER TO JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C, DOCUMENTS SEIZED MUST BE INCRIMINATING AND MUST RELATE TO EACH OF ASSESSMENT YEARS WHOSE ASSESSMENT S ARE SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED - HELD, YES - DURING COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF A COMPANY, A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED TRIAL BALANCE AND BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESS EE COMPANY FOR PERIOD 1-4-2010 TO 13-9-2010 - THOUGH SEIZED DOCUMENTS MIGHT PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE, SAME WA S NOT PROVED TO BELONG TO ASSESSEE - FURTHER, SAID DOCUMENTS DID NOT RELATE TO RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA RS AND SECONDLY, THEY COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE INCRIMIN ATING - WHETHER SINCE, BOTH ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C WERE NOT MET, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WAS UNJUSTIFIED - HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS AFORES AID, AS AFORESAID, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153(C)/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13 12. FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02 IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, AS AFORESAID, THE ANOTHER CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 ALSO STAND ALLOWED. 13. AS REGARDS, BOTH THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE CONC ERNED, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT WHILE DEALING WITH ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, AS AFORESAID, HENCE, BOTH THE REVE NUES APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND AS SUCH THE SAME ARE DISMISS ED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEALS ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/12/2017. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 07/12/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES