Ms. Amina Rasool, New Delhi V. The Income tax Officer, Srinagar

ITA 362/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73225 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Competent authority; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.362(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 PAN :AVWPS4564N MRS. AMINA RASOOL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, R-8, GROUND FLOOR, SOUTH WARD 3(1), EXTENSION, PART-II, SRINAGAR, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. UPENDER BHAT, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30/01/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 08.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE ASSESSMENT AS BAD IN LAW AS NO JURI SDICTION VESTED WITH THE A.O. AS REQUIRED BY LAW. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 2 IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER & IN ANY CASE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITIONS/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WAS PASSED WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. 2. THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE ASSESSMENT AS BAD IN LAW AS NO PROP ER APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E. JCIT WAS OBTAINED BY TH E A.O. AS REQUIRED BY LAW. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER & IN ANY CASE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITIONS/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WAS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING AND SERVING A VALID NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF F INANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS I.E. BALANCE SHEE T, DETAILS OF SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN BANKS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, CO NFIRMATIONS OF CREDITORS ETC. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER & IN ANY CASE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF FINANCIAL S TATEMENTS AND BALANCE SHEET, DETAILS OF SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN BANKS, CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS ETC AND WITHOUT HEARING/ ADJUDICATING IS BAD IN LAW, UNJUSTIFIED & AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE TOTAL/FULL ADDITION OF RS.24,27,518/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITORS IN BANK AS FULL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IS NO T ATTRACTED. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT CARVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, TO M ODIFY, TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 3 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS APPEARING FROM T HE ORDER OF THE AO AT PAGES 1 & 2 ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE AS UNDER: AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM J & K BANK LTD CH ANAPORE, SRINAGAR, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUN T NO. SB 332 WITH THIS BANK. THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 20 02-03 RELEVANT TO A,Y.2003-04 REVEALS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/ - AGGREGATE HAS BEEN CREDITED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FILING HER RETU RN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, I HAD THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME OF RS .24,27,518/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2009 AFTER RECORDING THE A BOVE REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND AFTER OBTAINI NG APPROVAL FORM THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, SRI NAGAR, VIDE LETTER NO.1147 DATED 30.03.2009. NO RESPONSE WAS RE CEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE NOR DID SHE FILES HER RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, A DETAILED QUESTION NAIRE ALONG WITH NOTICES U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 17.09.2009 FIXING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 05.10.2009. IN ABOVE REFERRED QUESTIONN AIRE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING: IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INTIMATE TH E UNDERSIGNED WHETHER ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2009 HAS BEEN FILED BY YOU OR N OT. IF YES, PLEASE GIVE THE NUMBER AND DATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT AND FURNISH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME. AS PER YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NO. SB 332 MAINTAINED WIT H J & K BANK LTD. CHANAPORA, SRINAGAR THERE ARE AGGREGATE C REDITS OF RS.2427,518/- CREDITED ON DIFFERENT DATES. IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INTIMATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH CREDITS. A LSO INTIMATE YOUR SOURCE OF INCOME. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEE DINGS NOR ANY REPLY WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE. TO BE FAIR AND R EASONABLE TO ASSESEE, A SHOW CAUSE DATED 09.10.2009 WAS ISSUED AND SENT T HROUGH SPEED POST, ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION OR BEFORE 23.10.2009. IT WAS ALSO INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE T HAT IN CASE OF FAILURE ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 4 ON HER PART UNDERSIGNED WILL BE CONSTRAINED TO COMP LETE THE ASSESSMENT IN HER CASE U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. AGAIN ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS N OR ANY REPLY WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE. ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE DATED 2 0.11.2009 WAS SENT THROUGH SPEED POST ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH T HE REQUISITE INFORMATION ON OR BEFORE 07.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/- MAY NOT BE ADDED HER TOTAL INCOME. AGAIN NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESS EE. THE REPEATED NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NO INFORMATION TO OFFER. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW ABOVE FACTS AND NON COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, I AM CONSTRAINED TO PASS THE ORDER ON EX- PARTE BASIS, TO THE BEST OF MY JUDGMENT, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AV AILABLE ON RECORD, U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS DISCUSSED A BOVE, THERE ARE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS.24,27,518/- IN THE BANK OF ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME. SHE HAS NOT EVEN D ISCLOSED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN BANK. THE NON COMPLIANCE ON HER PART IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFF. THEREFORE, I HAVE EVERY REASON TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFF. I, THEREFORE, ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AT RS.24,27,518/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SUB MISSIONS WHICH WERE SENT TO THE A.O. THE AO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPOR T WHICH IN TURN WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO REJOINED THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 05.03.2013 AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISS ED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, REJOINDER BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 5 4. REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO.498 DATED 1 0.08.2011 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PROOF OF RETURNS IN THE FORM OF ACKNOWLED GEMENT RECEIPTS FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(4), NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11 AS PER FOLLOWIN G DETAILS: S.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR RECEIPT NO. DATE 1. 2005-06 NO. NOT ELIGIBLE 25.08.2005 2. 2006-07 4640003353 19.07.2006 3. 2007-08 4640017494 JULY, 2007 4. 2008-09 11314901022310 22.03.2010 5. 2009-10 113141460220310 22.03.2010 6. 2010-11 202419560250311 25.03.2011 HOWEVER, THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE RETURNS FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. 5. REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE APPELLAN T DATED 05.03.2013 IN RESPONSE TO THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY YOUR HONOUR IN THE ABOVE CASE AND FURTHER TO THE REMAND REPORT ISSUED/RECEIVED BY YOUR HONOUR FROM THE ITO, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR, WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBM IT OUR OBSERVATIONS ON THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY HIM. 5.1. THAT THE PROOF OF HAVING FURNISHED RETURNS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITO WARD 46(40, NEW DELHI STANDS ALRE ADY CONFIRMED BY THE SAID REMAND REPORT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S ) 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08 AND 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HER INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2002-03 AND 2003 -04 WITH ITO , WARD-46(3), NEW DELHI SINCE HER INCOME WAS NEVER VE STED WITH THE A.O. WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR. 5.2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL ALONG BEEN SUBMITTIN G THAT SHE HAS BEEN RESIDING AT 612, NEELPADAM-11, SECTOR IV, VAIS HALI, GHAZIABAD, UP SINCE THE YEAR 1994-95 AND THEREFORE, THE JURISD ICTION OF HER CASE NEVER VESTED WITH THE AO WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 6 5.3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY AND LEGALITY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO HER U/S 147/148 O F THE ACT. ON HER NATIPORA, SRINAGAR ADDRESS WHICH HAVE NEITHER BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE NOR EVER RECEIVED BY HER TO JUSTIFY INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT. THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH THE DEPARTMENT IN ITSELF IS A WITNESS TO THE FACT THAT NO SUCH NOTICE S HAS EVER BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RESULT THE PROCEEDINGS INI TIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE SERVED OF ANY LEGAL STANDING. THE AO H AS DELIBERATELY REMAINED SILENT ON THE VALIDITY AND LEGALITY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED/SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS B EST KNOWN TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS FOR YOUR HONOUR TO EXAMINE TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE LEGAL ITY AND VALIDITY OF THE NOTICES PURPOSED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED BY THE AO ON THE ASSESSEE. 5.4. THAT AS PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO , IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON 11.11.2008 WHERE AS THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT HAS B EEN OBTAINED/RECEIVED FROM ADDL. CIT AFTER A LONG GAP O N 30.03.2009 I.E. ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WE RE LIKELY TO BECOME TIME BARRED WHICH APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOU GHT BY THE AO TO JUSTIFY THIS EARLIER ACTION. 5.5. THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ON 11.11.2008 WITHOUT COMPLIANCE TO PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT IS ABINITIO VOID WHICH THE AO HAS TRIED TO COVER UP BY OBTAINING EX-POST FACTO APPROVAL ON 30.03.2009. AS SUCH THE AO HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE S TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DECIDED CASE STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER EARLIER REPLY BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 5.6. THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT THE JURISDICTION ISSUE TO THE NOTICE OF THE KIND AO WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HI M AND THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPELLED TO SEND THE REPLY ON 15.12.009 BY POS T/COURIER WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 16.12.2009 AND INSPITE OF HAVI NG RECEIVED THE LETTER, THE LD. A.O. PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ORDER ON 18.12.2009. NECESSARY PROOF FOR RECEIPT OF LETTER BY THE AO INT IMATING THEREIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION STAND ALREADY F ORWARDED TO YOUR HONOUR ALONG WITH OUR EARLIER REPLIES. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 7 5.7. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSERTS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NON NON COOPERATION/NON COMPLIANCE OF ANH NOTICES ISSUED TO HER SINCE THE EARLIER NOTICES IF ANY, HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT HER SRI NAGAR ADDRESS AND NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AT HER RESIDENCE AT NEELP ADAM KUNJ, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, UP EXCEPT FOR NOTICE RECEIVED ON 20.11.2009 WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS INCIDENTALLY IN SRINAGAR FOR A SHORT VISIT. 5.8. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED DETAILED R EPLY BEFORE YOUR HONOUR DATED 11.05.2005 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS AG ITATED THE ACTION OF THE AO NOT ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE PRODUCED BUT ALSO BASED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE COURTS WHEREIN SUCH ACTIONS BY THE AO HAVE BEEN HELD DEVOID OF ANY MERITS, BAD IN LAW AND ABINITIO ILLEG AL. CONCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ABINITIO VIDE AND BEYOND ANY JURIS DICTION OF THE AO AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED IS FIT TO BE QUASHE D ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 6. DETERMINATION . 6.1. THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE IS THAT THE A.O . RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE J & K BANK LTD, CHANAPORA, SRI NAGAR THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/- AGGREGATED HAS BEEN CREDIT ED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . AFTER RECORDING REASONS THE AO SOUGHT APPROVAL FORM THE THEN ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, SRINAGAR TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 30.03.2009 TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THER E WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE AS DISCUSSED IN PAGE 2 PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TOOK WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/- AS ASSESSEES INCOME F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TAXED THE SAME. 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT, REMAND REPORT AND COMMENTS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE REMAND REPORT. FIRSTLY, THE APPELLANT IS AGITATING THE ISSUE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BY STATING THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS WI THOUT APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT BUT LATER ON TAKEN THE APPROVAL EXPO-FACT O. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSERTION OF THE APPELLANT. EVEN IF ON THE LAST DATE OF TIME BARRING MONTH THE AO HAS TAKEN PERMISSION FOR ISSUI NG THE NOTICE, IT IS ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 8 VERY MUCH VALID AND THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY CAUSE OF GRIEVANCE. SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT HAS AGITATED TH E ISSUE OF NON SERVICE OF NOTICE BY THE A.O. THE REPLY OF THE APP ELLANT IS CONTRADICTORY. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE AND WENT TO THE A.O. FOR REPRESENTING THE CA SE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT ATTENDED ON 07.12.2009 BEFORE TH E AO AND SUBSEQUENTLY MADE SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING ON 15.12.2 009. IF THE APPELLANT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE BY MAKING HER PR ESENCE BEFORE THE AO. SHE IS DEBARRED FROM TAKING THE PLEA OF NON SER VICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS, THIS GR OUND OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 6.3. CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION THE APP ELLANT HAS CHALLENGED ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT JUR ISDICTION OF HER CASE LIES WITH ITO WARD 46(40, NEW DELHI AND NOT WI TH THE A.O. AT SRINAGAR. IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HER RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 AND 2010 -11 AT DELHI. WHEN THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT POINTED OUT THAT PRIOR TO A.Y. 2005-06 NO RETURN WAS FILED AT DELHI, THE APPELLANT COMMENTED THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HER INCOME WAS BELOW T HE TAXABLE LIMIT. HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE JURISDICTI ON OF THE CASE IS GENERALLY DECIDED BY THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THERE IS NO DENIAL THAT THE APPELLANT HAS A PLACE OF RESIDENCE AT SRINAGAR AND WAS ALSO OPERATING A BANK ACCOUNT OVER THERE. THE AO AT SRINAGAR HAS RIG HTLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION. SO FAR FILING OF RETURN AT DELHI IS C ONCERNED IT MUST BE OUT OF THE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. SO FAR FILING OF RETUR N AT DELHI IS CONCERNED IT MUST BE OUT OF THE OWN VOLITION AND NO T BY SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT OF JURISDICTION BY ANY INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITY. REGARDING CHANGE OF HER RESIDENCE FROM SRINAGAR TO NEELPADAM KUNJ VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD U.P. IS CONCERNED, IN NORMAL PARLANCE TH E JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN GAZIABAD AND NOT IN DELHI. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS WRONGLY EMPHASING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND TRYING TO TAKE SHELTER UNDER THE JURISDICTION WHICH IN FACT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A CORRECT JURISDICTION. SINC E THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 AND THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT TA KE THE PLEA OF NON FILING OF RETURN DUE TO NON TAXABLE INCOME UNLESS E XPLAINED OTHERWISE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WHICH IS UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE APPELLANT CANNOT RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO TAKE SHELTER ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 9 ON TECHNICAL GROUND. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT HAS NO FORCE AND HENCE REJECTED. 6.4. THE APPELLANT THROUGHOUT HIS SUBMISSION HAS EMPHASIZED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION, LACK OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND CHOSE NOT TO COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DENI AL THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/- HAD BEEN CREDITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AT THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BAN K LTD; CHANAPORA, SRINAGAR. THUS ONUS WAS ON THE APPELLAN T TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY CREDIT ENTRY IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THIS HA S NEITHER BEEN DONE BEFORE THE A.O. NOR BEFORE ME. IN THE ABSENCE OF EX PLAINABLE SOURCE FOR THE SAID DEPOSITS, I HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS RIG HT IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.24,27,518/- U/S 59 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED WITH REG ARD TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE PERM ISSION OF THE JCIT WAS TAKEN WIDE LETTER NO.1147 DATED 30.03.2009 AND TH ERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NOTICES ISSUED EARLIER BY THE AO I.E. NOTIC E DATE 23.01.2008, LETTER DATED 8.11.2007 AS MENTIONED IN HIS LETTER DATE D 11.11.2008 (COPY OF LETTER DATED11.11.2008 AND NOTICE U/S 142 DATED 11. 11.2008 IS ON RECORD. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT REFERENCE TO SANCTION D ATED 30.09.2009 IS AFTER- THOUGHT AND ACCORDINGLY BAD IN LAW. NO SUCH N OTICE DATED 30.03.2009 HAS EVER BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THIS VITAL FACT WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO SANCTION OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, NO REASONS WERE RECORDE D AND THERE WAS NO ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 10 APPLICATION OF MIND. ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TRIED TO COVER THE ISSUE BY WRONGLY REFE RRING TO THE ATTENDANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7/12/2009 AND HIS SUBMISSIONS ON 15/12/2009 TO BE THE GROUND FOR REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING NON SERVICE OF NOTICE AS REFERRED TO IN AOS ORDER REFERRING TO THE DATE 30.03.2009. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE REFERRING TO THEIR ATTENDANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7/12/2009 AND 15/12/2009 REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS F ILING HIS RETURN AT DELHI AND THAT THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. THUS, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AND AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE NO APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD BEEN OBTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) TAKEN RECOURSE TO SECTION 292BB OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERA TE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALWAYS OBJECTED ON THE POINTS. I) THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VALID SERVICE OF THE NOT ICE. II) THAT THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEE. ` FURTHER SECTION 292BB IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE AS IS EVID ENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. III) IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SUBMISSIO NS WERE SENT BY SPEED POST ON 15/12/2009 DELIVERED ON 16.12.2009 AND ORDERS IS SUED ON 18.12.2009. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THESE SUBMISSION S IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN REFERRING TO SECTION 292BB. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 11 IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE CAUTIONED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BY MAKING REFERENCE TO THE POINT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THEN CONCLUDED THAT BE CAUSE OF NON-FILING OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE AO W ARD 3(1) HAS VALID JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E PLACED BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEEN ASSESSED AT DELHI WARD 4 6(4).. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT IT IS A KNOWN FACT OF LAW THAT AT A PARTICULAR TIME THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE JURISDICTION FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THAT JURISDICTION LIED WITH AO DELHI. IN CASE OF CIT VS. AAR BEEN INDUSTRIES, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE TWO ASSESSING OFFICER S AT A SINGLE POINT OF TIME. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE REFERRED CAS E PERTAINS TO THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH I.E. ITAT, AMRITSAR WHICH HAS BEEN DISCU SSED IN DETAIL BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE AO IN RESPECT OF A CASE A T POINT OF TIME WHEN PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED AO IN SO FAR AS ALL THE CASES OF ASSESSEE ARE ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 12 CONCERNED WAS AO AT DELHI. IT IS ACCEPTED BY THE C IT(A) AS WELL AS AO THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT HAD FILED HI S RETURNS AT DELHI IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE YEAR 2 005 TO THE YEAR 2011. THESE ARE DETAILED AT SR. NO.4 ON PAGE NO.5 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT BEING BAD IN LAW NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 6. WITH REGARDS TO OTHER GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT TAKE THE COGNIZANCE OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACTS, AS IS EVIDENT FRO M THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THAT A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.200 9 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AND AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE ADDL . CIT VIDE LETTER NO.1147 DATED 30.03.2009. IN THIS REGARD, THERE IS NO DISPU TE TO THE FACT THAT THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE-III, SRINAGAR, WAS OBT AINED VIDE LETTER NO.1147 DATED 30.03.2009 ONLY. THERE IS NO REFERENC E OF ANY EARLIER NOTICE ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 13 U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, MR. UPENDER BHAT, CA INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 1.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE ITO WARD-1, SRINGAR, WHICH CLEARLY REFERS TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SAID OFFICE U/S 148 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS DATED 23. 01.2009 AND LATTER DATED 08.11.2007 IN THIS REGARD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE, THE SAID LETTER APPEARING AT PB-6 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SUB: ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 REG. PLEASE REFER TO THIS OFFICE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I .T.ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DATED 23.01.2008 AND LETTER DATED 8.11.07. 2. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INTIMAT E THE UNDERSIGNED WHETHER RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE HAS BEEN FILED BY YOU OR NOT. IF YES, PLEASE GIVE THE DATE A ND RECEIPT NO. IF NO RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE HAS BEEN FIL ED THEN PLEASE INTIMATE WHETHER THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 WA S FILED BY YOUR ORIGINALLY OR NOT. IF YES, THEN PLEASE FURNISH THE COPY OF COMPLETE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY OR ITS PROOF THEREOF. 3. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THIS OFFICE, YOU HAVE DEPOSITED A AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.24,27,518/- DURI NG THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2003-04 ON DIFFER ENT DATES IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.332, J & K BANK, CHANPORA,. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE INTIMATE THE FOLLOWING: I) YOUR SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR AND YOUR G ROSS INCOME. II) SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED AS PER THE DETAI LS GIVEN ABOVE, ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. III) GIVE DETAILS OF YOUR PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENDI TURE DURING THE YEAR. IV) REPLY TO LETTER DATED 8.11.2007 ( COPY ENCLOSED FOR REFERENCE) 4. YOUR REPLY SHOULD REACH THIS OFFICE BY 27.11.08. NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 14 YOURS FAITHFULLY, (SATBIR SINGH) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SGR. 8.1. ALSO NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 11.11.2008 PLACE D AT PB-7 IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 200 3-04 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO : A) ** PREPARE A TRUE AND CORRECT RETURN OF YOUR INCOME /THE FIRMS INCOME/FAMILYS INCOME/THE LOCAL AUTHORITYS INCOME /THE COMPANYS INCOME/INCOME OF THE A.O.P./ INCOME OF TH E BODY OF INDIVIDUALS/INCOME OF .. IN RESPECT OF WHICH YOU ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED ABOV E. THE RETURN SHOULD BY IN THE APPROPRIATE FORM AS PRESCR IBED IN RULE 12 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. IT SHOULD BE DULY VERIFIED AND SIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 140 OF THE SAID ACT AND DELIVERED AT MY OFFICE ON OR BEFOR E________ B) ** PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE ME AT MY OFFICE AT RAJ BAGH ON 27/11/2008 AT 11.30 AM/PM THE ACCOUNTS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED BELOW/OVERLEAF. C) ***FURNISH IN WRITING AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBE D MANNER INFORMATION CALLED FOR AS PER ANNEXURES AND ON THE POINTS OR MATTERS SPECIFIED THEREIN BEFORE ME AT MY OFFICE AT ON .AT AM/PM. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR. 8.2. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT REPRODUCED HEREINA BOVE, WHICH HAVE NOT ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 15 BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. DR. THE AO SRINAGAR HAD ISSU ED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 23.01.2008 WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM TH E ADDL. CIT, WHICH APPROVAL, IN FACT, WAS TAKEN VIDE LETTER NO.1147 DA TED 30.03.2009 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 1 OF AOS ORDER AS REPRODUCED HER EINABOVE. AS PER SECTION 151(2), NO NOTICE U/S 148 (1) CAN BE ISSUE D BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLES S THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSES SING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, SUCH SATISFACTION OF JOINT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS TAK EN ONLY ON 30.03.2009 WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 23. 01.2008 WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE SAID SATISFACTION OR APPROVAL OF JOINT/ADDL. CIT. THEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AN D IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED A RE DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION ISSUE, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE INCEPTION I.E. ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WITH THE ITO WARD 46(1), NE W DELHI AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE LATER YEARS ALSO, THE RETUR NS HAVE BEEN FILED IN NEW ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 16 DELHI, ITSELF. AS REGARDS THE FINDINGS OF THE AO TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND THERE FORE, JURISDICTION VESTS WITH THE ITO, SRINAGAR CANNOT BE HOLD GOOD FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FIRST RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, HE WAS NOT TAXABLE AND THEREFORE, NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED FOR THOSE YEARS. AND THE JURISDICTION IN ANY CASE CAN L IE ONLY WITH ONE AO IN RESPECT OF THE CASE AND THERE CANNOT BE JURISDICTIO N OF A CASE WITH TWO AOS OF TWO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AAR BEE INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN (2013) 85 CCH 107 (DELHI) (D ATED 5 TH JULY, 2013) AND HEAD NOTE OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, AS UNDER: IT WAS TRUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE CASE WAS WIT H REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, BUT IT WAS ALSO TRUE THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT IS DETERMINED BY THE SITUS OF THE AO. WHEN THE AO ITSELF HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, THE HIGH COURT EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF TH E TERRITORY COVERED BY THE TRANSFEREE AO WOULD BE THE ONE WHICH WOULD H AVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL U/S 260-A. EVEN IN CASE OF AMBIC A INDUSTRIES V. CCE 2007 (6) SCC 769, A DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT IT WOULD BE THE SITUS OF THE AO AD N OT THE SITUS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WOULD HAVE THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT HEARING AN APPEA L. OF COURSE, THE ABOVE DECISION WAS NOT ONE RENDERED UNDER THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, BUT WAS ONE WHICH PERTAINED TO AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH CO URT UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944. IN ANY EVENT, THERE WAS N OTHING IN AMBICA INDUSTRIES, WHICH COULD ENABLE US TO TAKE A VIEW DI FFERENT. IT WAS A WELL ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT THERE COULD BE ONLY ON E AO IN RESPECT OF A CASE. AT THE POINT OF TIME, WHEN THE PRESENT APPE ALS WERE FILED, THE AO IN SO FAR AS ALL THE CASES OF THE RESPONDENT WER E CONCERNED, WAS ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 17 THE AO AT DELHI. IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OR THE FACT THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE AO AT JAMMU WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE COURT AT THE POINT OF TIME AT WHICH AN APPEAL U/S 2 60A WAS FILED. IT WAS THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FILED WHICH WO ULD BE THE MATERIAL POINT OF TIME FOR CONSIDERING AS TO IN WH ICH COURT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED. ON THE DATES ON WHICH THE PRESENT APPEALS WERE FILED, THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE AO AT NEW DELHI AND THEREFORE, HIGH COURT, DELHI WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN T HESE APPEALS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS WERE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE HIGH COURT, DELHI. RATIO DECIDENDI: WHEN THE AO ITSELF HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, THE HIGH COURT EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF TH E TERRITORY COVERED BY THE TRANSFEREE AO WOULD BE THE ONE WHICH WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL U/S 260A. 10. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE AO IN RESPECT OF THE CASE AND IN THE PRES ENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SINCE ITS INCEPTION IS BEING ASSESSED AT NEW DELHI. THIS FACT WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFO RE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE LIES AT NEW DELHI AND NOT AT SRINAGAR AND ACCORDINGLY PRESENT ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE BY THE AO, SRINAGAR AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE, HELD TO BE INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE ON MERIT, THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,27,51 8/- FOR THE REASON ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 18 MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WHICH IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED AND THEREFORE, GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED.. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.362(ASR)/2013 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30TH JANUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:MS. AMINA RASOOL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ITO WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR