Amit Gupta, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3808/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2411 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS AASHMA PAUL
• Section: 153A; 234B; 201; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3807/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) ITA NO.3806/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) ITA NO.3808/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ITA NO.3809/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) SH. AMIT GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PANACGPG 1744B VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3810/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) ITA NO.3811/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) 2 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3812/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ITA NO.3813/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) SMT. VIBHA GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PANADFPA 6060J VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3814/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) ITA NO.3815/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) ITA NO.3816/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ITA NO.3817/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) SMT. UMA GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PAN-AAHPG 0455E VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 3 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3819/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 ) ITA NO.3820/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 ) ITA NO.3821/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 ) SH. ASHISH GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PAN-AAFPJ 1605F VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3822/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) ITA NO.3823/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011 -12) ITA NO.3824/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012 -13) DEVANSHI AMIT GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PAN-AAFPJ 1605F VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 4 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3825/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-0 9) ITA NO.3826/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-1 1) ITA NO.3827/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 ) ITA NO.3828/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 ) SH. SURENDER GUPTA AERENS BIMALDEEP COMPLEX, BEHIND POCKET-3, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 PAN-AAHPG 0456H VS. ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJESHWAR PRASAD PAINULY, CA RESPONDENT BY MRS. AASHMA PAUL, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 17.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.02.2021 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE 22 APPEALS RAISE IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THEY WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THRO UGH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH IN AERENS GROUP OF CASES ALONG WITH OTHER RELATED GR OUPS AT THE VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES. THE SEAR CH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.08.2011. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER CALLED THE ACT) WERE ISSUED TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ASSES SEES AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AS UNDER: ITA NOS. ASSESSEES NAME ASST. YEAR ASSESSED INCOM E 3807/DEL/2016 AMIT GUPTA 2010 - 11 RS.37,03,294/ - 3806/DEL/2016 AMIT GUPTA 2008 - 09 RS.31,51,191/ - 3808/DEL/2016 AMIT GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS. 1,69,47,018 / - 3809/DEL/2016 AMIT GUPTA 2012 - 13 RS.57,40,046/ - 3810/DEL/2016 VIBHA GUPTA 2008 - 09 RS.31,77,787/ - 3811/DEL/2016 VIBHA GUPTA 2010 - 11 RS.32,03,202/ - 3812/DEL/2016 VIBHA GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS.1,60,40,127/ - 3813/DEL/2016 VIBHA GUPTA 2012 - 13 RS.50,42,588/ - 3814/DEL/2016 UMA GUPTA 2008 - 09 RS.39,26,723/ - 3815/DEL/2016 UMA GUPTA 2010 - 11 RS.28,92,688/ - 3816/DEL/2016 UMA GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS.1,60,73,233/ - 3817/DEL/2016 UMA GUPTA 2012 - 13 RS.51,71,869/ - 3819/DEL/2016 ASHISH GUPTA 2006 - 07 RS.12,39,128/ - 3820/DEL/2016 ASHISH GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS.15,90,613/ - 382 1 /DEL/2016 ASHISH GUPTA 201 2 - 1 3 RS. 4,97,527 / - 3822/DEL/2016 DEVANSHI AMIT GUPTA 2006 - 07 RS. 12,22,824 / - 6 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 3823/DEL/2016 DEVANSHI AMIT GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS.14,72,083/ - 3824/DEL/2016 DEVANSHI AMIT GUPTA 2012 - 13 RS.6,85,623 / - 3825/DEL/2016 SURENDER GUPTA 2008 - 09 RS.33,28,096 / - 3826/DEL/2016 SURENDER GUPTA 2010 - 11 RS.43,66,401/ - 3827/DEL/2016 SURENDER GUPTA 2011 - 12 RS.1,57,98,589/ - 3828/DEL/2016 SURENDER GUPTA 2012 - 13 RS.76,34,996/ - 3.0 AGGRIEVED BY THESE ASSESSMENTS, THE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES APPROACHED THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CHALLE NGING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. HOWEVER, ALL THE APPEALS WER E DISMISSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CI T(A)}. NOW, THE ASSESSEES HAVE APPROACHED THIS TRIBUNAL CHALLEN GING THE DISMISSAL ALL THE APPEALS BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES: GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3807/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,32,100/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF S HARE 7 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURE LY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTIT UTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3806/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,64,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF S HARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURE LY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 8 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3808/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,00,000/- AR BITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS B OGUS. FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFEREN T ENTITIES. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,56,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF S HARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND 9 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURE LY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,24,000/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THAT SERVICES WAS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIR ECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AB OUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS. FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TW O DIFFERENT ENTITIES. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCU MENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3809/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 10 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,00,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS. FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RE JECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE F ACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S HOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3810/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,64,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. 11 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RE JECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE F ACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S HOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3811/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,64,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RE JECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PRO VISIONS OF 12 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTIT UTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3812/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,00,000/- AR BITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS B OGUS. FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFEREN T ENTITIES. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSE D. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,56,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, 13 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,24,000/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3813/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, OR DER OF THE 14 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI SMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,00,000/- ARBITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE COMP ANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS. FURTHER, C OMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RE JECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3814/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,64,000/- ARBITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE A PPELLANT FOR 15 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE AD DITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITU TE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3815/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,32,100/- ARBITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE A PPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE AD DITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 16 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITU TE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3816/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,00,000/- AR BITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,56,000/- ARBITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH TH E ASSESSING 17 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE A PPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE AD DITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,24,000/- ARBITRARILY AND ON A D HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENC E WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE COMP ANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS. FURTHER, C OMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE F ACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S HOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTIT UTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3817/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI SMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, OR DER OF THE 18 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.48,00,000/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DON E BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITU TE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3819/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLAN T. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,12,500/- ARBI TRARILY AND 19 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY OR PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMI SES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3820/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,46,262/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B AND 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT 20 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3821/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,120/- ARBITRA RILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PR OVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 21 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3822/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,12,500/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMI SES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTI TUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3823/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER 22 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,46,261/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE F ACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S HOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBST ITUTE, MODIFY OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3824/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,120/- ARBITRA RILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PR OVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, 23 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3825/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,64,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT 24 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOUL D BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBST ITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3826/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,32,100/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DESPITE THE F ACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S HOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTI TUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 25 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3827/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,00,000/- AR BITRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,56,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER 26 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,24,000/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3828/DEL/2016 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPE LLANT. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,00,000/- ARBI TRARILY AND ON AD HOC BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WORKS WAS DON E BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE TRANS ACTION OF THE COMPANY, IN WHICH APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR, IS BOGUS . FURTHER, 27 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,50,000/- ARBIT RARILY AND ON PRESUMPTION BASIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE INAD MISSIBLE PAPER FOUND DURING THE SEARCH NEITHER BELONGS TO TH E APPELLANT NOR ITS BUSINESS. MOREOVER NO SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ON NON-APPLIC ABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DE SPITE THE FACT THAT SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THUS, ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4.0 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES OF BEI NG HEARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT EVEN IF THE LD. 28 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT CIT(A) HAD TO PROCEED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEES, T HE ADJUDICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEF ORE HIM. 5.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS APPARENT FROM THE READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD NOT CO-OPERA TED AT ALL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. SR. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEES SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR CARELESSNES S AND NON COOPERATIVE APPROACH AND THAT THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEES DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF T HE ASSESSEES TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLAIMS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BE FORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6.0 ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, BOTH THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, AGREED THAT THE APPEALS COULD BE RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 7.0 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND DULY T AKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THESE A PPEALS CAN BE RESTORED TO THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A), FOR THE C AUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL 29 ITA NOS.3806 TO 3 817/DEL/2016 ITA NO S.3819 TO 3828/DEL/2016 SH. AMIT GUPTA & ORS. VS. ACIT JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT EXPEDIENT TO RESTORE ALL THE CA PTIONED APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR BEING ADJUDICATED UP ON AFRESH BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO PRESENT THEIR CASES. WE ALSO DIRECT TH E ASSESSEES TO FULLY CO-OPERATE DURING THE COURSE OF THE FIRST APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS STAND ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/02/2021 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI