Manoj Kumar Jain, New Delhi V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3783/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1173 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 15; 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3783 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 0 9 - 10 & ITA NO. 3784 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 10 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN C/O M/S O.P.SAPRA & ASSOCIATES C - 763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY NEW DELHI 110 025 PAN: A CLPJ4982H VS . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE INCOME TAX OFFICE 3 RD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX 1 HAPUR ROAD GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADV. D EPARTMENT BY : SH. J.K.MISHRA, CIT, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 29 /01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/ 0 3 /2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER P RESENT APPEALS HA VE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 31/03/15, PASSED BY LD.CIT(A), ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 2 GHAZIABAD FOR A SSESSMENT Y EARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS : 1. THAT AFTER HAVING HELD THAT ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF I.T. ACT WAS NOT VALID THEREBY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS TO THE AO: AO IS HOWEVER DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THAT WHILE DIRECTING TO AO TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, LD. CIT(A) HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 250/251 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE PARA 7 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER: SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C STAND QUASHED ON LEGAL GROUND, OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THEM ON MERIT. INSTEAD OF THE ABOVE, THE ID. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED ON MERITS BECAUSE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED U/S 153C HAS BEEN QUASHED ON LEGAL GROUND. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND/MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: SE ARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED ON 11/10/10 IN CASE OF SHR I PANKAJ SHARMA AND SHRI AJAY SHARMA. THERE WAS INFORMATION REGARDING CASH GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM ACCOUNT NO.05732560002277 OF M/S. A.K TRADERS WITH HDFC B ANK, AMBEDKAR ROAD, GHAZIABAD, SOURCE OF WHICH IS ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 3 NOT EXPLAINED IN HA NDS OF SH. AJAY SHARMA , P ROPRIETOR OF M/S. A.K TRADERS. WHEN TEAM VISITED BAN K PREMISES IT WAS FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.2,78,00,000/ - , WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT NO.0674002190416097 WITH PUNJAB N ATIONAL B ANK, NAVYUG MARKET, GHAZIABAD, STANDI NG IN NAME OF M/S. TUSHAR BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER, HAVING ADDRESS AT SHOP NO. 3, HARISH CHAND KA BAGH. BANK WAS ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED TO PUT BALANCE OF RS.1,78,35,905/ - STANDING IN CREDIT OF M/S. A.K T RADERS WITH HDFC BANK , UNDER RESTRAINT. MEANWHIL E TEAM IMMEDIATELY VISITED PUNJAB N ATIONAL B ANK AND IT WAS FOUND THAT BY THAT TIME ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,78,00,000/ - , HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN IN CASH. SEARCH TEAM ACCORDINGLY SEIZED AMOUNT LYING IN HDFC BANK IN NAME OF M/S. A.K TRADERS A S ON 11/10/10 . 2.1. D URING EXAMINATION OF SH. AJAY SHARMA, STATEMENT WERE RECORDED AND IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT SOURCE OF AMOUNTS CREDITED TO ABOVE ACCOUNT AND DESTINATION OF AMOUNTS DEBITED AS ENTIRE AFFAIRS WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY SHR I PANKAJ SH ARMA , HIS BROTHER - IN - LAW, WHOSE OFFICE ADDRESS IS 12, NAVY U G MARKET, GHAZIABAD. ACCORDINGLY, SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE A CT WAS CONDUCTED AT 12, NAVY U G MARKET, GHAZIABAD. IT WAS FOUND THAT SAID OFFICE WAS OF SHR I MAN O J KUMAR JAIN (ASSESSEE BEFORE US), P ROPRIETOR OF M/S RISHAV TRADING CO. AND NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE FOUND TO BE CARRIED ON AT THE PREMISES. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 13/10/10, RESIDEN CE F LAT NO. 306, PLOT NO.3 1 4, MADHAV K UNJ, S ECTOR - 2, RAJ E NDRA NAGAR, SAHIBABAD , GHAZIABAD OF SH. AJAY SHARMA, P ROPRIETOR WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER SEARCH. DURING ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 4 EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 132 (4) ON 13/10/10, SHR I PANKAJ SHARMA STATED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN GARB OF SUPPLY OF STEEL AND BUILDING MATERI AL IN NAME OF VARIOUS CONCERNS AND M/S A.K TRADERS IS ONE OF THEM. 2.2. ENQUIRIES/SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED BY LD.AO (MORE PARTICULARLY ELABORATED IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS AT PAGE 2 - 13) , FROM WHICH IT WAS UNEARTHED THAT ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN BUSINESS OF ENTRY PROVIDING. 2.3 . IT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY LD.AO THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND FROM PREMISES OF M/S RISHAV T RADING C OMPANY P ROPRIETARY C ONCERN OF ASSESSEE AND M/S TUSHAR B UILDING M ATERIAL S UPPLIER, P ROPRIETARY C ONCERN OF SHR I SANJ A Y THAKUR ON 12/10/10 DURING SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE A CT. LD.AO ALSO RECORDED THE DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED UNDER SECTION 133A (3) DURING COURSE OF SURVEY AT OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S RISHAV T RADING C OMPANY CONTAINING INCRIMINATING MATERIALS AND TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THESE DOCUMENTS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN RECORDED BY LD. AO THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. 2.4. IN COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF SHR I PANKAJ SHARMA AND SH. AJAY SH ARMA DURING SEARCH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND HAVE MERELY ISSUED FALSE BILLS TO PARTIES AND RETURNED AMOUNT WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY RTGS OR CHEQUE , IN CASH AFTER WITHDRAWING CASH FROM BANK S . THEY HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED SHRI PANKAJ SHARMA AND ADVISED HIM FOR WORK OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 5 SHR I PANKAJ SHARMA USED TO SIT IN THIS OFFICE QUITE OFTEN AND WAS DOING WORK OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. SH. PANKAJ SHARMA ALS O STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN SAME LINE OF WORK ON LARGE - SCALE AND IS THE KING P IN OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY , SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT OFFICE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE , WHERE HE WAS FOUND ABSENT AND HIS A CCOUNT ANT SH. AJAY SAINI WAS AVAI LABLE , WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN RECORDED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S (CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS) WERE FOUND THERE. LD. AO THUS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH OPERATION AND POST - SEARCH ENQUIRIES AND SURVEY UNDER 133A IN THE PREMISES OF RISHAV T RADING C OMPANY AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF SHR I MAN O J KUMAR JAIN IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN BUSINESS OF ENTRY PROVIDING. 2.5. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C WAS ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 ON 18/09/12 FOLLOWED BY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) FOR FILING OF RETURNS. ASSESSEE IN REPLY FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 17/01/13 AND SHOWN INCO ME OF RS.5,23,880/ - FROM BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND SUM OF RS.5,44,970/ - WAS DECLARED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. FURTHER NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143 (2) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) W ERE ISSUED ON 21/01/13. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE ATTENDED PROCEEDINGS AND WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME. ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 6 2.6. LD. AR OBJECTED TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE A CT ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY SURV EY UNDER 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 12/10/10 IN ASSESSEES CASE . HE THUS CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 C. LD.AO REJECTED OBJECTION BY RECORDING THAT ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SECTION 153C BECAUSE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF A.K TRADERS ON 11/10/10 AT BANK PREMISES OF HDFC BANK, AND THEREAFTER SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. 2.7. LD. AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.95,33,787/ - BEING 3% OF GROSS DEPOSITS , AMOUNTING TO RS. 31,77,92,911/ - FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 GROSS DEPOSIT WAS RS.30,55,14,198/ - AND ADDITION @ 3% OF SUCH DEPOSITS BEING, RS.91,65,426/ - . 2.8. LD.AO FURTHER ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS ENTIRE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED BY TREAT ING IT AS UNEXPLAINED ADDITION FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY ADDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11, MADE BY LD. AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). L D. CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ONLY ASSET SEIZED WAS CAS H FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF A K T RADERS AND THERE IS NO SATISFACTION THAT ANY PART OF THIS MONEY BELONG TO ASSESSEE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT SATISFACTION MERELY MENTIONS ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS STATED BY SH. PANKAJ SHARMA THE PERSON SEARCHED FURTHER. HE THUS HELD THAT A.O. , WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C, AND PROCEEDINGS WERE QUASHED HOLDING IT TO BE INVALID. ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 7 4. LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER DIRECTED LD.AO TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE AC T. LD. CIT (A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE ISSUE S ON MERITS , AS PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 15 3C WERE QUASHED BY HIM. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. IN GROUND NO. 1 - 3 , ISSUES RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE SUMMARISED A S UNDER: (I) LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTION OF LD.CIT(A) TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT, WAS NOT VALID, WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WAS QUASHED BY LD.CIT (A). IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN ISSUING SUCH DIRECT IONS , AND EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 250/251 OF THE ACT. (II) ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED WITH OBSERVATIONS REGARDING OTHER GROUNDS ON MERITS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY LD.CIT (A) AND WERE DISMISSED, SINCE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 153C WERE QUASHED . IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS RAISED, LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON DECISIONS OF CO - O RDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SH.SANJAY THAKUR VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 3785 - 86/ D EL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 DATED 12/07/18 AND DECISION OF SE D CO O VERSEAS LTD VS ITO IN ITA NO. 6636/ D EL/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 DATED 18/07/18. 6.1 . LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH EMBARGO UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE A CT AND LD.CIT(A) WAS W ELL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH DIRECTION. ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 8 7. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 7.1 . IT IS NECESSARY TO ANALYSE SECTION 251 OF THE A CT IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE ISSUE IN CONSIDERATION. 7.2. U NDER SECTION 251, APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS ENTITLED TO EITHER CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT; HE MAY SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT AND REFER THE CASE BACK TO A SSESSING O FFICER FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM AFTER MAKING SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRY , AS IT MAY BE NECESSARY, AND , A SSESSING O FFICER SHALL THEREUPON PROCEED TO MAKE SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINE WHERE NECESSARY, AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE ON BASIS OF SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE S ECTION, OR MORE SPECIFICALLY THE C LAUSE STIPULATES CONFIRMATION, REDUCTION, ENHANCEMENT OR ANNULMENT OF ASSESSMENT. THE DECLARATION OF LAW IS CLEAR THAT POWER OF FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CO - TERMINOUS WITH THAT OF A SSESSING O FFICER, AND IF THAT IS SO, NO EXCEPTION COULD BE MADE TO THIS VIEW , AS THE A CT DOES NOT PLACE ANY RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION ON EXERCISE OF APPELLATE POWER BY LD.CIT(A) . EVEN OTHERWISE, APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE HEARING APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF SUBORDIN ATE AUTHORITY , HAS ALL POWERS , WHICH ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAVE WHILE DECIDING QUESTION BEFORE IT , SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITAT IONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS , A PP EL L A T E AUTHORIT Y IS VES TED WITH ALL POWERS WHICH SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 9 7.3 . DURING COURSE OF HEARING , THIS B ENCH BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF LD.AR DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 14/08/18 IN WP (C) 5684/2017 AND WP (C) 5717/17 IN CASE OF RAMESH CHANDER VS ACIT AND SANJAY CHANDRA VS ACIT RESPECTIVELY , WHICH CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUE WHEREIN LD. CIT (A) WHILE DEALING WITH APPEALS OF M/S. ACORUS UNITECH PVT. LTD., WAS OF OPINION THAT ADDITIONS WERE TO BE MADE IN HANDS OF SH. RAMESH CHANDRA AND SH. SANJAY CHANDRA INSTEAD OF M/S. ACORUS UNITECH PVT. LTD., SUBSEQUENT TO WHICH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE A CT WERE ISSUED TO SH. RAMESH CHANDRA AND SH. SANJAY CHANDRA, BY LD.AO. 7.4 . HONBLE C OURT WHILE DECIDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 147 TO PETITIONERS BEING SH. RAMESH CHANDRA AND SH. SANJAY CHANDRA OBSERVED AS UNDER: 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ASSESSEE, ANY NOTICE/OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THEM. IT, HOWEVER, URGES THAT OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE FINAL ASSESSMENT OF SUCH AMOUNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS COMPLETED. HONBLE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY IS TO BE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF ANY DIRECTIONS TO LD.AO BY LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER , IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSEE. 7.5. IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THAT LD. CIT (A) RECORDED AS UNDER: IN SUCH FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153C IS NOT VALID. PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C ARE ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 10 THEREFORE QUASHED. AO IS HOWEVER DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION U/S 147/148 OF TH E I.T.ACT, 1961. 7.6 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT LD.CIT(A) CONCLUDED HIS ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE DIRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE/ WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) MAY PASS SUCH ORDER IN APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT. THE WORDS, AS HE THINKS FIT MEANS THAT POWERS OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT ARE WIDE. 7.7. LOOKING FROM A DIFFERENT ASPECT, LD. CIT(A) HAS SUCH POWERS BECAUSE PROVISIONS OF SEC.150, PROVIDES AS UNDER: PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL, ETC. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 149, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION 1 OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER ANY OTHER LAW]. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APPLY IN ANY CASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR R ECOMPUTATION AS IS REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB - SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVI SION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION MAY BE TAKEN. IF IT IS HELD THAT LD.CIT(A) DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO GIVE ANY DIRECTION, THEN PROVIS IONS OF SEC.150 REGARDING POWERS TO GIVE DIRECTION TO AO BECOMES OTIOS . IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LD.CIT(A) IS EMPOWERED TO GIVE BOTH FINDINGS AND DIRECTION AS PER POWERS OF LD.CIT(A) U/S 251 OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 11 7. 8 . WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO CONCUR WITH VIEW TAKEN BY CO - OR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) , RELIED UPON BY LD.AR, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO VIEW EXPRESSED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE . 7. 9 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATIO NS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 22 ND MARCH, 2019 GMV ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 12 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES ITA NOS. 3783 & 3784/DEL/2015 AYS:2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SH. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT 13 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.03.19 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.03.19 22.03.19 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON & ORDER UPLOADED ON : 22.03.19 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.