DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Bhupinder Pal Singh Sarna, New Delhi

ITA 3695/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86479 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH SHARMA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 131; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. GEORGE GEORGE K. , JM ITA NO. 3037 /DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 SH. BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SA RNA, 23/41, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI - 1100 26 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 11, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3695/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI VS SH. BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA, 23/41, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI - 110026 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AANPS4416M ASSESSEE BY : SH. SACHIN JAIN & RAJESH SHARMA, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. A. MI SRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 06 .01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .01.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXXI , NEW DELHI. 2. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3037/DEL/2013. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 2 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL AND NON - MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE SAME HAS TO BE PASSED U/S 153C AND NOT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN TOTO SINC E IT IS: A) NOT SIGNED BY THE LD. AO B) PASSED WITH BIAS MIND C) PASSED WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION D) PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION E) PASSED ON THE BASIS OF INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE DEFECTIVE AND NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF LAW. F) PASSED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF THIRD PARTIES WHICH WERE COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF ASSESSEE AND DESPITE REQUEST NOT BEING PROVIDED TO HIM. G) PASSED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY ETC. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 478,03,345/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT. 4. THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 61,56,251/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID FOR LOAN TAKEN TO BOUGHT THE SHARES. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON BLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH. ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 3 3. T HE LEGAL ISSUES R AISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 RELATE S TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) INSTEAD OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 4. FACTS OF THE CA SE IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 19.02.2009 IN THE CASE OF LO UTONS GROUP OF CASES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN MOU RELATING TO TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARE CAPITAL OF M/S S. R. RESORTS PVT. LTD. WAS SEIZED FROM THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE FOUR SELLERS WHOSE NAMES WERE APPEARING IN THE MOU. IN THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DECLARATION OF INCOME OF RS. 3.87 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 131 OF THE ACT, EARNED BY HIM ON SALE OF STAKE OF SHARE CAPITAL IN M/S S. R. RESORTS PVT. LTD. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), UNIT VI(1), NEW DELHI, BEFORE WHOM THE DECLARATION WAS ADMITTED, SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL FOR CENTRAL IZATION OF THE CASE. CONSEQUENT UPON CENTRALIZATION OF THE CASE A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 13.10.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.03.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,83,39,654/ - W HICH INCLUDED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,78,13,289/ - . THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 10.09.2010. LATER ON, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 4 THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 14,10,20,905/ - BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 5 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED A PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED CERTAIN ADDITIONS. 6 . NOW A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTAINED ADDITION AND DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORD ER DATED 05.11.2014 IN ITA NOS. 1436/DEL/2012 AND 1707/DEL/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JASJIT SINGH ONE OF THE FOUR SELLERS. 7 . IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT COULD NOT CONT ROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THREE OTHER PERSONS EARNED THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE MOU FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGED TO FO UR PERSONS ONE OF THEM WAS JASJIT SINGH THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SH. JASJIT SINGH (SUPRA) WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2014 IN THE ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 5 ITA NOS. 1436/DEL/2012 AND 1707/DEL/2012 WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDING S HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARAS 13 TO 16 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 13. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF KOUTONS WAS CONDUCTED ON 19/02/2009 WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE F.Y. 01/04/2008 TO 31/03/2009 AND THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR IS 2009 - 10. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED BY LD. CIT U/S 127 OF THE ACT AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WARD 25(3) TO CENTRAL CIRCLE 11 WAS TRANSFERRED ON 16/06/2009, HENCE PREVIOUS YEAR WOULD BE 01/04/200 9 TO 31/03/2010 AND THE A.Y. WILL BE 2010 - 11. ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION IS NOT VALID AND NOT MAINTAINABL E. AS PER HIM, THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WOULD BE THE DATE I.E. 16/06/2009 WHEN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH) WERE HANDED OVER AND JURISDICTION FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WAS TRANSFERRE D TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DATE 16/06/2009 AS DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THE SEARCH YEAR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WOULD BE A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND SIX PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE 2009 - 10 TO 2003 - 04. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C READ WITH 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN SUPPORT THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR. 14. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR ) ON THE CONTRARY REMAINED THAT THE REFERENCE OF PROVISO 1 OF SECTION 15 3C IS ONLY IN ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 6 RELATION TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION 1 OF SECT ION 153A WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NOT REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRECE DING SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WILL BE THE SAME AS IN SECTION 153A AS WELL AS IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). 15. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DSL PROPERTI ES P. LTD. (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTING THE SIMILAR CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE DELHI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF V.K. FISCAL (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT TH E DATE OF RECEIVING OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WOULD BECOME THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SIX YEARS PERIOD WOULD ITA NOS. 1436 & 1707/D/2012 JASJIT SINGH 8 BE RECKONED FROM THIS DATE. FOR A READY REFERENCE PARA NO S . 19, 21, 22 & 23 OF THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DSL PROPERTIES (SUPRA) ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBM ISSIONS. PROVISO TO SECTION 153C READS AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTH ER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE O F INITIATION OF THE SEARCH U /S 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION U/S 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO [SUB - SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFEREN CE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. 20. THE ABOVE PROVISO REFERS T O SECOND PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A. THAT SECTION 1 53A(1) AND ITS FIRST AND SECOND PROVISIONS READ AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 7 153A. [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINE D IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTI ON 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATE D U/S 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SECTION 132A A FTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE AO SHALL (A) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFI ED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASS ESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO I N CLAUSE (B), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MA NNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULA RS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETU RN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED U/S 139; (B) ASSE SS EE OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OR SIX ASSE SSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE : PROVIDED THAT THE AO SHALL ASSE SS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSME NT YEAR FALLING WITHI N SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR F ALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO I N THIS [SUB - SECTION] PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH U/S 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION U/S 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE. ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 8 21. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A AN D SECOND PROVISO, THE AO CAN BE ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASS ESSMENT OF TOTAL SIX A SSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED. AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 153C, THE DATE OF SEARCH IS TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O R DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS S EIZED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON. LD. DR HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE AO OF THE PER SON SEARCHED AND THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON WAS THE SAME, NO HAN DING OVER OR TAKING OVER OF THE DOCUMENT WAS REQUIRED. THAT SECTION 153C(1) AND ITS P ROVISO HAVE TO BE READ TOGETHE R IN A HARMONIOUS MANNER. WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 153C, WE HAVE A LREADY HELD THAT FOR INITIATING VALID JURISDICTION U/S 153C, EVEN I F THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND T HE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IS THE SAME, HE HAS TO FIR ST RECO RD THE SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THEREAFTER, SUCH NOTE ALONGWITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS TO BE PLACED IN THE FILE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE DATE ON WHICH THIS EXERCISE IS DONE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF REC EIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THOUGH W HILE EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN PROPERLY CARRIED OUT AND, THEREFOR E, INIT IATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C ITSELF IS I NVALID, HOWEVER, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ARGUED THE ISSUE OF PER IOD OF LIMITATION ALSO, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. SIN CE IN THIS CASE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED ON 21ST JUNE, 2010 AND NOTICE U/S 15 3C IS ALSO ISSUED ON THE SAME DATE, THEN ONLY CONCLUSIO N THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON HAS TAKE N OVER THE POSSESSION OF SEIZED DOCUMENT ON 21ST JUNE, 2010. ACCO RDINGLY, AS PER SECTION 153(1), THE AO CAN ISSUE THE NOTICE FOR T HE PREV IOUS ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 9 YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED (FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 153C THE DOCUMENT IS HANDED OVER) AND SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR. NOW, IN THIS CASE, THE PREV IOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE DOCUMENT IS HANDED OVER IS 1ST APRIL, 201 0 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2011. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE A.Y. 2011 - 12. SIX PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEARS AND RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE AS UNDER: PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2010 2010 - 11 1.4.2008 TO 31.3.2009 2009 - 10 1.4.2007 TO 31.3.2008 2008 - 09 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.2007 2007 - 08 1.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006 2006 - 07 1.4.2004 TO 31.3.2005 2005 - 06 22. THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153C FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 WHICH IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. THER EFORE, IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C ISSUED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON BOTH THE ABOVE COUNTS, I.E., IT IS LEGALLY NOT VALID A S CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 153C HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED AND IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUE DU/S 153C AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN PU RSUANCE TO SUCH NOTICE, IS ALSO QUASHED. 23. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE ADDITIONS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSE SSEE BY WAY OF OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL DO NOT SURVIVE, AND , THER EFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 16. WE THUS, FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , BY THE COORDINATE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DSL PROPERTIES (SUPRA). ITA NO. 3037 & 3695 /DEL /2013 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH SARNA 10 9 . SO, R ESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 05.11.2014 IN THE CASE OF SH. JASJIT SINGH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 11 IN ITA NOS. 1436/DEL/2012 AND 1707/DEL/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , T HE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(2) INSTEAD OF SECTION 153C R .W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS HELD TO BE INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. S INCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, T HERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ANOTHER ISSUE S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES AGITATED BY THE DEP ARTMENT ON MERIT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 /01/2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06 /01/2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR