Mr Vinay Sharma, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5030 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAI NST A COMMON DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Salary income; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 80C; 142(1); 153A; 201; 13; 22; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.319 TO 323/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2013-14 MR. VINAY SHARMA, C/O-AVK & ASSOCIATES, CAS, KD-117, PITAMPURA, DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI PAN :BTBPS1237C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST A COMMON ORDER DATED 08/09/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-23, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A )] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. AS THESE APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER AND IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN DIFFERENT ASS ESSMENT YEARS, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR CONVENIENCE AND AVOID R EPETITION OF FACTS. AS IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SUSHMA SINGH, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING 12.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.02.2020 2 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 APPEALS, WE ARE REPRODUCING HERE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND BASED AT HI MACHAL PRADESH. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT WORKED AS AN EMPLOYEE DIRECTO R OF M/S. INDIA TECHNOMAC CO. LTD. & OTHER GROUP COMPANIES DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. 3. THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESS EE ON 09.01.2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED. 4. THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE APPELL ANT SUBMITTED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FROM SALARY AMOUNTING TO RS.2, 32,000/- AND INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.2,570/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80C FOR RS.95,000/-. 5. THAT VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTIO N 143(3)INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.6,46,396/- AND TAX ON THE INCOME INCLUDING INTEREST U/S 234 A & B HAS BEE N IMPOSED AMOUNTING TO RS.1,76,263/-, THE ADDITION MAINLY PER TAINS TO NON- FURNISHING OF PROOF U/S 80C AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED DU RING SEARCH OPERATIONS. 6. THAT VIDE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-23, NEW DE LHI, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GRANTED RELIEF FOR ONE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,29,920/- AND ONE ADDITION HAS BEEN ENHANCED BY A SUM OF RS.1,44,608/-. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY LIKE TO MENTION THAT DESPITE NOTIFYING NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WERE HARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASS ESSEE WAS EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR OF M/S INDIAN TECHNOMAC CO. LTD ( ITCOL) DURING RELEVANT PERIOD. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTI ON UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. ITCOL AN D THEIR 3 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 DIRECTORS. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED 01/05/2014 FOR THE RELEVANT YEA RS ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, NO TICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED ALONG WIT H QUESTIONNAIRE. NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TILL 05/03/2015 THOUGH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT DATED 09/12/2014 PROPOSING LEVY OF THE PENALTY OF R S 10,000 AND SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT DATED 09/1 2/2014 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ON 15/12/2014 WERE IS SUED. ON 05/03/2015, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE APPEARED AND FILED REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS WERE A CCORDINGLY COMPLETED AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITION/DISALLOWANC ES INCLUDING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FOR A VERY LO NG PERIOD. THEREAFTER, SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH DELETED MOST OF THE ADDITIONS, HOWEVER ON THE ISSUE OF THE BANK DEPOSITS, HE ENHAN CED THE ADDITIONS. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BA SIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED WITH NO OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BE FORE ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ADMITT ING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD 4 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FI ND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), IN IMPUGNED ORDER FOR ALL THE YEARS INVOLVE D IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US, ENHANCED THE INCOME OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.5 GROUND NO. 03 IN AY 2009-10 AND GROUND NO. 04 IN AYS 2010- 11 TO 2013-14 RELATE TO ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DEP OSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, AND IN AYS 2009-10 & 201 0-11 THE NET RECEIPTS DETERMINED BY THE AO ON DEPOSITS IN BANK A CCOUNTS AND AS PER THE DOCUMENT PAGE-1 OF ANNX.-A SEIZED FROM APPE LLANTS RESIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD AS PER THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT FILED WITH THE WS FILED ON 06 .05.2016 FOR AY 2009-10 & 26.08.2016 FOR AYS 2010-11 TO 2013-14 THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE. AY 2009- 10 AY 2010- 11 AY 2011- 12 AY 2012- 13 AY 2013 - 14 4. BANK ACCOUNTS (AMT. IN RS.) BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.8256 OF THE APPELLANT WITH PUNJAB & .SIND BANK, PAONTA SAHIB BRANCH, (NO NARRATION) CASH - 26000 - - - OTHER DEPOSITS 751887 100734 232901 72510 ' TOTAL DEPOSITS 751887 126734 232901 72510 INTEREST 334 151 712 1089 146 BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 11693024271 OF THE APPELLANT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAMUKHA SAB, KANGRA BRANCH (NO NARRATION) CASH - - 100000 110000 397310 OTHER DEPOSITS - 600 - - 1265822 TOTAL DEPOSITS - 600 100000 110000 1663132 INTEREST 24 30 44 13 BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.352302010060 731 OF THE APPELLANT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHAMUKHA SAB, KANGRA BRANCH (WITH NARRATION) CASH - 115000 318000 41000 - OTHER DEPOSITS - 426638 349098 425348 127329 TOTAL DEPOSITS - 541638 667098 466348 127329 INTEREST 239 1064 1428 1040 BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. CASH - 535 458 140000 - OTHER DEPOSITS - - 585420 5 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 155DP0020009 67 OF THE APPELLANT WITH KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHANTLA BRANCH (NO NARRATION) TOTAL DEPOSITS - 535 458 725420 ' INTEREST 9 22 90 BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.20155011449 OF THE APPELLANT WITH KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHANTIA BRANCH (NO NARRATION) CASH - - - - - OTHER DEPOSITS - - - 1146 233225 TOTAL DEPOSITS - - - 1146 233225 INTEREST 9 509 TOTAL CASH - 141000 418458 291000 397310 TOTAL DEPOSITS 751887 669507 1000457 1375424 2023686 INTEREST 358 429 1842 2629 1695 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS OBSERVED THAT A TOTAL DEPOSITS , INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS, AND THE INTEREST CREDITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AS ABOVE. THE AO HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE S OF RS.7,52,301/-, RS.6,67,906/-, RS. 15,98,242/-, RS.2 7,68,527/- & RS.54,72,430/- AS TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE 05 RESPECTI VE YEARS. WHILE THE AO HAS ALSO CONSIDERED RS.4,50,000/- LOAN RECEI VED ON 30.10.2010 FROM SB! FOR PURCHASE OF BOLERO, RS.15,0 0,000/- RECEIVED FROM APPELLANTS FATHER, SH. M.L. SHARMA, DEPOSITED IN THE SBI ACCOUNT ON 12.03.2012 IN AY 2012-13 AND RS.5,94 ,175/-, RS. 20.00 LAKH BEING RECEIPT FROM NEW INDIA INSURANCE C OMPANY (AGAINST THEFT OF BOLERO ON 16.0J3.2012) AND LOAN F ROM ITCOL RESPECTIVELY IN AY 2013-14, THERE ARE MARGINAL DIFF ERENCES IN OTHER YEARS. THE FIGURES CALCULATED BY ME ARE TAKEN FOR C ONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL. THE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM SH. M.L. SHA RMA AS ABOVE IS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY HEREIN BELOW, AND THE INSURAN CE RECEIPT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME. 4.5.2 IN THE AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 THE AO HAS FURTH ER CONSIDERED ]HE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE-1 OF ANNX.- A THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO MENTIONED AT PARA-12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THESE TWO YEARS, THAT THE AMOUN T MENTIONED IN THESE PAGES PERTAIN TO EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE MIN E MANAGER SH. K.C PANT, AND EMPLOY OF THE SAME COMPANY, AND RELAT E TO EXPENSES AT THE LIME STONE MINE AND THE ENTRIES DO NOT RELAT E TO THE APPELLANT. BUT THE AO CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUP PORTING DOCUMENT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A CCEPTED. BUT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY NOR DID HE EXAM INE AS TO WHETHER THE ENTRIES/EXPENSES AS PER THIS DOCUMENT R ELATED TO M/S INDIAN TECHNOMAC COMPANY LTD. (ITCOL) WHICH WAS ALS O ASSESSED 6 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 BY THE SAME AO THE PRIMARY SEARCH BEING AGAINST THI S COMPANY GROUP OF SH. R.K. SHARMA, AND IF THESE EXPENSES WER E NOT ACCOUNTED THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID COMPANY. BESIDES, THE UNEXPLAINED-DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED FOR TAXATIO N BY THE AO WHICH COULD BE FROM ANY SUCH BUSINESS CARRIED BY TH E APPELLANT AS ALLEGED BY THE AO, AND NO CO-RELATION OF THESE ENTR IES WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT INCLU DING CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS AS WELL HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY TH E AO. YET THE AO SET OFF THE EXPENSES OF RS.1,44,608/- AND RS.8,4 90/- AS PER THIS DOCUMENT AGAINST THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACC OUNTS IN THE TWO AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 AND BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY THE N ET AMOUNT OF RS.3,76,906/- AND RS.4,19,416/- AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR RS.2,30,787/- AND RS.2,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALAR Y DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE FWO RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE LINKING THE S AID SEIZED PAGE WITH THE APPELLANT, WHICH THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS DENIED, AND AS PER MY FINDING HEREIN ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE SAID SEIZE D PAGE DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATION WITH THE APPELLANT AND CANNOT BE CONS IDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE INCOME A SSESSED IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD ACCORDINGLY BE ENH ANCED BY THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,44,608/- AND RS.8,490/- RESPECT IVELY. 4.5.3 AS REGARD THE. BANK ACCOUNT, AS MENTIONED AT PARA-4.2 HEREIN ABOVE, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT AN EXCEL S HEET STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSITS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS BUT TH E APPELLANT/APPELLANTS AR FAILED TO APPEAR OR SUBMIT SAID DETAILS/EXPLANATION. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE TO BE ASSESS ED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN ALL THE YEAR S, EXCEPT FOR THOSE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AS NOTED AT PARA-4.5 ABOVE, W ITH DUE ALLOWANCE FOR THE SALARY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS AND ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE AO, AS ALSO RS.4,50,000/- LOAN RECE IVED ON 30.10.2010 FROM SBI FOR PURCHASE OF BOLERO, RS. 15, 00,000/- RECEIVED FROM APPELLANTS FATHER, SH. M.L. SHARMA, DEPOSITED IN THE SBI ACCOUNT ON 12.Q1L2012 IN AY 2012-13, CONSIDERED SEPARATELY HEREIN BELOW, AND RS.5,94,175/- & RS. 20,00,000/- L AKH BEING RECEIPT FROM NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY (AGAINST T HEFT OF BOLERO ON 1.6.08.2012) AND LOAN FROM ITCOL RESPECTIVELY IN AY 2013- 14. FURTHER,. RS. 1,500/- AND RS.4,500/- HAVE BEEN FOUN D DEPOSITED AGAINST REIMBURSEMENT OF TUITION FEES IN AYS 2012-1 3 & 2013-14 WHICH HAVE APPARENTLY NET BEEN CLAIMED U/S 80C OF T HE ACT IN THE REGULAR RETURNS FILED AND I HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED T HE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF LIP PAYM ENTS AS CLAIMED. 7 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 4.5.4 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED AND A COMMON AFFIDAVIT DT. 02.05.2016 IN ALL THE YEARS WHEREIN HE HAS BESIDE S TATEMENTS REGARDING THE SEIZED DIARY, SALE OF BUS AND PURCHAS E OF BOLERO, AND FDS IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER, SH. M.L. SHARMA, HE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE WAS REIMBURSED MONTHLY FUEL AND OTHER DAY-TO-DAY EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES, TRAVELLING E XPENSES, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES AND FACTORY EXPENSES. WITH THE AFFIDAVIT A CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY SH. VIVEK GUPTA, MANAGER OF I TCOL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHEREIN VARIOUS AMOUNTS ARE SHOWN AS PAID TO HIM BY ITCOL BY CHEQUE AND CASH - RS.2,78,352/- INCLUDING RS. 1,35,000/- IN CASH IN AY 2010- 11, RS.6,63,053/- INCLUDING RS. 3,70,000/- IN CASH IN AY 2011-12, RS.3,64.743/- INCLUDING RS.41,0 00/- IN CASH IN AY 2012-13 AND RS.1,44,801/- IN AY 2013-14. ON PERU SAL OF THE CERTIFICATE ENCLOSED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY ALLEGING RECEIPTS FROM ITCOL BUT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS STATEME NT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE AND SUP PORTING EVIDENCE IS NO EVIDENCE. HENCE, NO COGNIZANCE OF THE AFFIDAV IT IS TAKEN TO THIS EXTENT. 4.5.5 THUS, THE INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSM ENT IN THESE FIVE YEARS WOULD BE AS UNDER: AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS 7,51,887 6,69,507 10,00,457 13,75,424 20,23,686 LESS: SALARY: 2,32,000 2,40,000 2,35,000 2,72,500 3,55,000 NET INCOME 5,19,887 4,29,507 7,65,457 11,02,924 16,68,686 THE INCOME ASSESSED ON THIS ACCOUNT WOULD GET MODIF IED/ENHANCED ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 4.1 ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE FORE ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE BEFORE ENHANCING THE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVE D FROM SUBMITTING HIS EXPLANATION AND WHICH HAS RESULTED I N VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE WHILE 8 ITA NOS. 319 TO 323/DEL./2017 AYS : 2009-10 TO 2013-14 ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INT EREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, MAY ALSO BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORD INGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT BOTH THE PARTIES, I.E, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE AFFORDED ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4.2 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI