Shelendra Kumar Jain, Delhi V. Pr. CIT- 19, New Delhi

ITA 3180/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2215 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Assessment record; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 201; 143(2); 147; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER ITA NO:- 3180/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SHELENDRA KUMAR JAIN, 76 - B, DDA FLATS, JHILMIL COLONY, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI PAN-ADJPJ4984G VS PR. CIT - 19, D BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI . S.S. RANA , CIT (DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM [A]. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED BY LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT, LD. PR. CIT] PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASS ESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- GROUND NO. 1 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. PR. CIT DELHI-19 HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 263 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 ARE NOT VALID IN LAW. GROUND NO. 2 2.1 THE PR. CIT DELHI-19 HAD INITIATED REVISION PRO CEEDINGS IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRY IN THE MATTERS WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED AND WHICH WERE NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 2 2.2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143 (3) AND U/S 147 COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 2.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE POSSIBLE VI EWS AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND BUT PR. CIT DELHI-19 HAD NOT DEMONSTRATED HOW THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT A LSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HENCE THE REVISION ORDER WA S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND HENCE NOT VALID AND UNSU STAINABLE IN LAW. 2.4 THOUGH LD. PR. CIT DELHI-19 WAS NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT HE HIMSELF HAS NEITHER CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY NOR BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL JUSTIFYING AND SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS WERE ERRONEOUS. 2.5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND FURTHER AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION U/S 147 ALSO, WHICH A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT OFFICER HAD ALREADY COMPLETE D THE REQUISITE ENQUIRIES, CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND VERI FICATIONS AND HAD COME TO A REASONED CONCLUSION BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. [B]. VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,31,83,620/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, BY LD. PR. CIT, VIDE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 28.03.2017. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 OF PR. CIT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30. 09.2012 DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS.74,52,299/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED THROUGH CASS UNDER COMPLETE SCRUTINY BASIC ALLY ON THE REASON 'LARGE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES'. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS. RS.L,32,83,620/- AFTER MAKING AN A DDITION OF RS.58,40,310/- BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF EXPENS ES OF PERSONAL AND UNVERIFIABLE NATURE. 2. POST RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), THE CASE WAS EXA MINED IN THE OFFICE OF PCIT-19 WHEREIN IT IS FOUND THAT SOME POINTS/ISS UES SHOULD HAVE ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 3 BEEN EXAMINED/ VERIFIED BY THE A.O. DURING THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 143(3), BUT HE FAILED TO DO SO. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 263 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE SHOW CAUSING ON POINTS/ISSUES WHICH ARE HE REUNDER:- TO, SH. SHELENDRA KUMAR JAIN, 76-B, DDA FLATS, JHILMIL COLONY, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI-110095 SIR, SUB: NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE CA SE OF SH. SHELENDRA KUMAR JAIN (PAN: ADJPJ4984G), 76-B, DDA F LATS, JHILMIL COLONY, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI-110095, A.Y. 201 2-13 REGARDING 2. YOU HAVE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2012 DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 74,52,299/-. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE CASE WAS SELECTED THROUGH CASS BASICALLY ON THE REASON LARG E SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 1,32,83,620/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 58,40 ,310/- BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF EXPENSES OF PERSONAL AND UNVERIF IABLE NATURE. 3. FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS BY PCIT-19, SOME ISSUES HAVE CROPPED UP WHI CH THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO VERIFY AND DID NOT LOOK DEEPLY, THE ISSUE S ARE AS UNDER:- [1) THE MAM POINT FOR SELECTION, VIZ. HUGE SALES PR OMOTION EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO DEEPLY. ALTHOUGH A 5% DISALLOWANCES HAS BEEN MADE, BUT NO MEANINGFUL VERI FICATION HAS BEEN MADE SO AS TO ENQUIRE ITS GENUINENESS AND REAS ON FOR HUGE INCREASE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. (II) IT APPEARS FROM THE PAST ASSTT. RECORDS THAT N O BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. FOR THIS REASON ALSO, A THOROUGH PROBE, INTO GENUINENES S OF BOOKS BEING MAINTAINED BY YOU NEED TO BE VERIFIED. III) YOU HAVE FURNISHED BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER BUT STA TEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED EITHER FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E OR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WAS NOT CALLED FOR BY THE AG DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE BANK ACCOUNT S MAINTAINED BY YOU NEED THOROUGH VERIFICATION. IV) YOU HAVE PROVIDED LIST OF PARTIES FROM WHOM YO U HAVE MADE PURCHASES BUT AO HAS NOT MADE CROSS-VERIFICATION DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PRODUCED LEDGER AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PURCHA SE PARTIES. ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 4 V) YOU HAVE DEBITED VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES IN P & L ACCOUNT TOTALLY TO RS. 7.19 CR. IN THIS RESPECT, DETAILS OF THE SAME WERE NOT CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE DETAILS OF OTHER EX PENSES HEAD- WISE AND ALSO STATE APPLICABILITY OFTDS UNDER CHAPT ER-XVIL OF THE IT ACT 1961. VI) YOU HAVE SHOWN RENT PAID OF RS.58.66 LAKH IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT NO RENT AGREEMENT IS ON RECORDS. S O, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FILE RENT AGREEMENT AND ALSO STATE APP LICABILITY OF TDS UNDER CHAPTER-XVII OF THE IT ACT 1961 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSES SMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT VERIFYING THE ABOVE ASPECTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORDER OF THE AO UNDER DISCUSSION IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. THE ABOVE ISSUES WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN VIEW OF A BOVE, YOU ARE SHOW- CAUSED AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY NOT BE TR EATED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE UNDER DIE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 1961 5.IN CASE, YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SUBMIT IN THIS REGA RD, YOU MAY SUBMIT THE SAME EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE IN THIS OFFICE ON 16.03.2017 AT 11:30 AM AT ROOM NO. 0-106, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAW AN, 1-P ESTATE, NEW DELHI- 110002, FAILING WHIC H IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WILL BE PASSED ON THE B ASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. EACH OF THE ISSUES OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISCUSSED AS UNDER:- THE MAIN POINT FOR SELECTION, VIZ. HUGE SALES PROMO TION EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO DEEPLY. ALTHOUGH A 5% DISALLOWANCE S HAS BEEN MADE, BUT NO MEANINGFUL VERIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE SO AS TO E NQUIRE ITS GENUINENESS AND REASON FOR HUGE INCREASE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. ON THE ABOVE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HIS BUSINESS WAS IN EXPANSION MODE AND THEREFORE MORE OFFICES IN NEW AR EAS WERE ESTABLISHED. HE HAD TO RESORT COMPARATIVELY HIGH EXPENSES ON SAL ES PROMOTION & MARKETING FOR EXPANDING THE BUSINESS. TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS CLAIMS, HE HAD FILED (I) COMPARATIVE CHART FOR SALES PROMOTION EXPE NSES FOR LAST 4 YEARS (II) ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 5 LIST OF CITIES WHERE EXPANSION TO ESTABLISH THE BUS INESS IN NEW AREAS (III) SUB-HEAD WISE, MONTH-WISE AND AREA-WISE EXPENSES ON SALE PROMOTION AND MARKETING. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE SAM E SUBMISSIONS HAD ALSO BEEN FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 3(3). HOWEVER THE A.O. HAD DISALLOWED 5% OF RS.4.89 CRS. EXPENSES OWING TO NOT FILING OF ANY CORROBORATIVE DOCUMENTS OR DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF TH E EXPENSES. HENCE NO ADVERSE FINDINGS ARE MADE IN THIS ISSUE. IT APPEARS FROM THE PAST ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT N O BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FO R THIS REASON ALSO, A THOROUGH PROBE, INTO GENUINENESS OF BOOKS BEING MAI NTAINED OR NOT NEED TO BE VERIFIED. ON THE ABOVE ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ALREADY MAINTAINED BOOKS. THE SAME WERE FILE D DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) AS WHEN ASKED BY THE A.O. HO WEVER FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT NO BILL OR VOUCH ERS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. PROVIDING ONLY THE LIST OF DEBTORS AND CRED ITORS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HENCE THIS ISSUE N EEDS EXAMINATION BY THE A.O. III. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER BUT STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS, MAINTAINED EITHER FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WAS NOT CALLED FOR BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. THEREFORE THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY YOU NEED THOROUGH VERIF ICATION. ON THIS ISSUE HE HAD SUBMITTED THAT SAVING AND CURR ENT ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES NOT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE SAME INFORMATION WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE A.O. DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) VIDE LETTER DATED 09.12.2014. HOWEVER TH E AO HAD NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE DEBITS AND CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S. IV. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED LIST OR PARTIES FROM WHOM YOU HAVE MADE PURCHASES BUT AO HAS NOT MADE CROSS-VERIFICATION DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUESTE D TO PRODUCE LEDGER AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PURCHASE PARTIES. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THAT HE H AD ALREADY SUBMITTED A LIST OF S/CREDITORS AND CONFIRMATIONS FROM SOME OF THE S/CREDITORS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2). HOWEVER NO I NDEPENDENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6 ) TO THE S/CREDITORS. ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 6 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION S AND ITR FROM THE PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY, THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. V. YOU HAVE DEBITED VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES IN P & L ACCOUNT TOTALLY TO RS. 7.19 CRS. IN THIS RESPECT DETAILS OF THE SAME WERE NOT CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND NO SAMPLE VERIFICATION MA DE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE DETAILS OF OTHER EX PENSES HEAD-WISE AND ALSO STATE APPLICABILITY OF TDS UNDER CHAPTER XVII OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS O F OTHER EXPENSES BOOKED IN P & L ACCOUNTS STATING THAT IN THE P & L NO SIMILAR HEADINGS ARE FOUND SO ALL ARE GROUPED AND BOOKED UNDER ONE HEAD I.E. OTHER EXPENSES. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAILS IT IS FOUND THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 7.19 CRS. MAJOR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN TH E NAME OF PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING EXPENSES (RS. 3.39 CRS.) OFFICE MAINT ENANCE (RS. 11.55 LAC), PRINTING AND STATIONARY (RS. 40.71 LAC), OTHER ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENSES (RS. 83.42 LAC). THESE ISSUES NEED FURTHER EXAMINATION A S THE NAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AO. VI. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENT PAID OF RS. 58.66 L ACS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT NO RENT AGREEMENT IS ON RECORDS. SO, YO U ARE REQUESTED TO FILE RENT AGREEMENT AND ALSO STATE APPLICABILITY OF TDS UNDER CHAPTER XVII OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HERE HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT RENT PAID IS IN SMALL A MOUNTS RANGING FROM RS. 2,000/- TO RS. 9,000/-P.M. HENCE NO TDS DE DUCTION IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER KEEPING IN VIEW THE LARGE AMOUNT INVOLVED U NDER THIS HEAD, INDEPENDENT INQUIRY IS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. WHICH H E HAD FAILED TO DO. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE ABOVE ISSUES TO THE EXTE NT OF NO PROPER ENQUIRY AND DETAILS OBTAIN THEREIN. THUS, I SET-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WITH INSTRUCTION TO THE AO TO ENQUIRE DEEPLY INTO ABOVE ISSUES AND THEN REFRAME T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 7 [C] THIS PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 OF THE LD. PR. CIT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, REVENUE WAS REPRESENTED BY SHR I. S.S. RANA, CIT (DR). HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEES SIDE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, WE HEARD THE LD. CIT (DR). THE LD. CIT (DR) RELIED UPO N THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 OF THE LD. PR. CIT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE PRECEDENTS IN THE CASES OF (I) ORDER DATED 29.11.20 17 OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DENIAL MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (APPEAL NO. 2396/2017) II. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR, 83 (SC) (III) RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P.) LTD. VS. PCIT 386 ITR 162 (CA LCUTTA) IV. RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P.) LTD., VS. PCIT 245 TAXMAN 127 (SC). AFT ER PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28 .03.2017 OF THE LD. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE PRECEDENTS IN THE CASES OF (I) O RDER DATED 29.11.2017 OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DENIAL MERCHAN TS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (APPEAL NO. 2396/2017) II. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. L TD. VS. CIT 243 ITR, 83 (SC) (III) RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P.) LTD. VS. PCIT 386 ITR 162 (CALCUTTA) IV. RAJMANDIR ESTATES (P.) LTD., VS. PCIT 245 TAXMAN 127 (SC), WE FIND THAT HE HAS PASSED SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS. RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT HAD ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCE D IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. P R. CIT HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR HIS DECISION IN THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER DATED ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 8 28.03.2017. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT) NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT FO R OUR CONSIDERATION TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT (DR) AND AFTER PERUSAL OF MATERIALS ON RECORD, AND FURTHER, IN VIE W OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE AFORES AID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF TH E FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. [D] BEFORE WE PART; WE EXPLICITLY CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APP EAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNA L), RULES, 1963. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS IN ITAT, THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW HA VING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. [E] IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11/2 019. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NAT H MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 20/11/2019 SH ITA NO:-3180 /DEL/2017 PAGE | 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED 14 .11 .2019 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .11 .2019 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE .11 .2019