Naveen Jain, Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 393/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8760 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 393/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) NAVEEN JAIN, ARJUN MARG, DLF, PHASE-1, GURGAON. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO: AEVPJ3841D ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, GURGAON, [LD. CIT(A), FOR SHORT], DATED 15.12.2016. GROUNDS TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE AS UND ER: 1.THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE- 3, GURGAON WHO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT, AS HE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF NFT (INDIA) LTD, AND WAS BEING ASSESSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE-13(1) NEW DELHI IN THE PAST FOR SEVERAL YEAR S. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT FILED OBJECTIONS U/S 124 OF THE ACT AND CHALLENGED THE JU RISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE GURGAON BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT COMPLY THE ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 2 OF 11 PROVISION OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT AND DID NOT REFER THE DISPUTE OVER JURISDICTION TO C.I.T. 1.2 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING ALL LEG AL CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT RAISED BEFORE HIM ARBITRARILY AND ERRED I N UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,06,002/- AND VALIDITY OF THE ILL EGAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS. 23,06,002/- INTERALLIA ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED TR AVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,37,875/- AND CREDIT CARD PAYMENT OF RS. 21,68,127 /- ARBITRARILY ON MERIT ALSO AND WRONGLY STATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL. (B) THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 1,17,81,850/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT; AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.03.2015 WHEREIN TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,40,87,852/-(ROUNDED OFF TO RS. 1,40,87,850/-). THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER (AO, FOR SHORT) INCLUDED A SUM OF RS. 21,68,127/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENT AND A SUM OF RS. 1,37,875/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR HOTAL SER VICES. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. (C) AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US, IN THE PRESE NT APPEAL DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAIN ING THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS: 1. COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FILING RETURN OF A.Y. 2012-13. 2. COPY OF FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 26 TH JUNE 2014 SERVED ON THE APPELLANT FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING AS 7 TH JULY 2014. 3. COPY OF LETTER DATED 7 TH JULY 2014 OBJECTING THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 120 OF THE ACT AS THE APPELLANT BEING M ANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS ASSESSED WITH ALONG WITH COMPANY M/S NT F (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 3 OF 11 WITH D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI, DULY ACKNOW LEDGMENT NO. 673070714003890. 4. COPY OF SECOND LETTER DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2014, DULY ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 673151214017982, REQUESTING FOR TRANSFER OF ASSESSM ENT RECORD TO DCIT 13(1), NEW DELHI. 5. COPY OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 2 ND DECEMBER 2014 REQUIRING THE APPELLANT FOR FURNISHING COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE APP ELLANT FOR LAST THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE REPLY OF THE AFORESAID NOTIC E IS AVAILABLE AT POINT NO. 4. 6. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR FILING RETURN FOR A.Y . 2009-10 & 2010-11 AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 PASSED BY DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI. 7. COPY OF SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE CIT(A), GURGAON . 8. COPY OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF INCO ME TAX RULES BEFORE CIT(A) AND DETAILS OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARD BY THE APPELLANT, DULY ACCOUNTED FOR COMPANY M/S NTF (INDI A) PVT. LTD., ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF COMPANY. 9. COPY OF REMAND REPORT ON APPELLATE SUBMISSIONS A ND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. COPY OF REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT OF ASSE SSING OFFICER ALONG WITH NOTIFICATION DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 ISSUED BY CBDT REGARDING JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS. (C.1) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ALS O SUBMITTED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS. RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS SYNOPSIS IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT, AN INDIVIDUAL AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF NTF( INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, 4812/24, ANSARI ROAD DARYAGANJ NEW DELHI, FILED INC OME TAX RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,17,81,850/- WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.1,40,87,852/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OR RS.23,06,002/-INTER ALIA ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.1,37,875/- AND CREDIT CARD PAYMENT O F RS.21,68,127/- UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 13(1 ), WHO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF NTF(INDIA) PRI VATE LIMITED COMPANY WAS ASSESSED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURIS DICTION OVER THE SAID COMPANY AS PER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH SECTION 120 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN NEW DELHI FOR THE LA ST SEVERAL YEARS AND AS SUCH, THE APPELLANT FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, AS PER SECT ION 124(3) OF THE ACT, STATING THAT THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED WITH DEPUTY COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI, VIDE LETTER DATED 07.07.2014 OBJE CTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 4 OF 11 ASSESSING OFFICER GURGAON. PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 4 THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.2014, PAPER B OOK PAGE NO. 5 AGAIN REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TRANSFER OF ASS ESSMENT RECORD TO HIS JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER DCIT 13(1), NEW DE LHI. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR PRECEDING YEARS AND AS SESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 DATED 30.11.2016, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DATED 15.12.2018, ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2017-18 DATED 28.06.2019, PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 18(2 ) NEW DELHI AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 7 TO 18 OF PAPER BOOK. LEARNED C1T(A) OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED ON THE SUBMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE ON MERIT. IN THE REJOINDER, THE APPELLANT AGAIN SUBMITTED TO CIT (A) TO QUASH THE ORDER AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEE N COMPILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF TH E ACT IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT AND THE LAW. THE APPELL ANT ALSO SUBMITTED, 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LEGAL CONTENTION' THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OTHERWISE ALSO SHOULD BE DELETED AS THE APPELLANT I NCURRED TRAVELLING EXPENSES & OTHER EXPENSES ON CREDIT CARD ON BEHALF OF THE NFT (INDIA) LTD., IN WHICH HE IS M.D. AND COMPANY CLAIMED THE SAID EXPENSES IN PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT NECESSARY EVIDENCE(S) WERE SUBMITTED BUT THE C.I.T.(A) DID NO T ADJUDICATE THE CONTENTIONS ON MERIT AND ARBITRARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL. REMA ND REPORTPB 30-34 , 25- 29 , CONFIRMATION OF COMPANY (C.2) A SYNOPSIS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE IN A TABULAR FORM GIVING DETAILS, ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE, THE DETAILS OF FILIN G OF RETURN; AND DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER; WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: SL ASSESSMENT YEAR DATE OF FILING / DATE OF ASSESSMENT AO JURISDICTION 1 2009-2010 14.03.2011 U/S 143/3/CIRCLE 13(1) NEW DELHI DO 2 2010-2011 14.03.2011 DO DO 3 2013-2014 11.03.2016 ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) CIRCLE 13(1) NEW DELHI 4 2014-2015 ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DATED 30.11.2016 ACIT CIRCLE 18(2) NEW DELHI 5 2016-2017 ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DATED 15.12.2016 DO DO 6 2017-2016 DO DO DO ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 5 OF 11 (D) THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (L D. SR. DR) FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN RELIANCE WERE PLACED ON THE FO LLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. PCIT VS MEGA CORPORATION LTD ITA NO. 128/2016 2. ABHISHEK JAIN VS ITO [2018] 94 TAXMANN.COM 355(DELH I), [2013] 94 TAXMANN.COM 355 (DELHI) 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-XVI V. S.S. AHLUW ALIA [2014] 46 TAXMANN.COM 169 (DELHI) 4. DELUXE ENTERPRISES V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, S OLAN (H.P.) [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 771 (CHANDIGARH-TRIB.) (E) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (LD. AR, FOR SHORT) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REGULAR JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI, AND THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HE FUR THER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SYNOPSIS [REFERRED TO IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (C.2) OF THIS ORDER] WHEREIN THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, YEAR WISE, SHOWING DATE OF FIL ING OF RETURN/ DATE OF ASSESSMENT IN THE JURISDICTION OF ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2013-14,2014-15, 2016-17,2017-16. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO LETTER DATED 7 TH JULY, 2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DCIT, CIRCL E -3, GURGAON OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY HIM AND REQUESTING TO TRANSFER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONCERNED ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 6 OF 11 ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DEL HI. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION ALSO TO THE FACT THAT THE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 07 TH JULY, 2014 WAS FILED IMMEDIATELY AFTER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( I.T. ACT, FOR SHORT) DATED 26-JUNE- 14 SERVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH, HE CONTENDED, WAS THE FIRST NOTICE OF HEARING SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY DCIT CIRCLE-3, GURGAON. HE CONT ENDED THAT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE A SSESSMENT WITHOUT DECIDING THE OBJECTION TO HIS JURISDICTION, WHICH WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 07 TH JULY, 2014; AND ONCE AGAIN BY A SECOND LETTER DATE D 15 TH DECEMBER, 2014. THUS, IT WAS HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY DCIT, CIRLE-3, GURGAON, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. COMING TO THE I MPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 OF LD. CIT(A), THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED NOT ONLY IN UPHOLDING JURISDICTION OF DCIT, C IRCLE-3, GURGAON; BUT ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS I N SPITE OF DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS CONNECTION, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPY OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULE S BEFORE CIT(A). HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPY OF REMAND REPORT ON APPELLATE SUB MISSIONS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY ASSES SING OFFICER. HE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPY OF REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO T HE REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER (ALONG WITH NOTIFICATION DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 ISSUED BY CBDT REGARDING JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS) SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED, IN VIEW OF THE F OREGOING, THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A), AT PARA 3.8 OF IMPUGNED APPELLATE O RDER DATED 15.12.2016 THAT THE ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 7 OF 11 APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCES/ ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ; IS FACTUALLY WRONG. (E.1) THE LD. SR. DR RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE S OF PCIT VS MEGA CORPORATION LTD (SUPRA), ABHISHEK JAIN VS ITO (SUPRA), COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-XVI V. S.S. AHLUWALIA (SUPRA), DELUXE ENTERPRISES V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA). IN REPLY, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTE REGARDING JURISDICTION OF DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON WAS NOT BEING PRESSED. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTE REGARDING MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS BE SET ASIDE TO T HE AO FOR FRESH ORDER, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBM ISSIONS ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. HE SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS NOT BEING CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EITHER BEFORE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON OR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). (F) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 9-10, 2010-11, 2013-14,2014-15, 2016-17,2017-16 WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE J URISDICTION OF ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI. THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDE PERIODS BEFORE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 (TO WHICH PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS) AS WELL AS, AFTE R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10, 2014-15 AND ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 8 OF 11 2016-17 (WHICH PERTAINS TO BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER AS SESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF I.T. ACT AFTER DUE SCRUTINY WERE PASSED BY ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, REGARDING JURISDICTION OF DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON SHOULD HAVE FIRST BEEN DECIDED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON; BEFORE HE PROCE EDED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY DCIT, CIR CLE-3, GURGAON IN AY 2012-13 IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT JURISDICTION IN OTHER YEARS WAS EXERCISED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI. MOREOV ER, FROM PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, ALONGWITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FO REGOING, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS IN ERROR IN MAKING OBSERVATION AT PARA 3 .8 OF HIS IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCES/ ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. (F.1) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A LEGITIMA TE EXPECTATION FROM THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON, THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED AGAINST THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON WILL FIRST BE DECIDED BY TH E DCIT, CIRCLE -3, GURGAON, BEFORE HE WOULD PROCEED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT. WHEN THE JURISDI CTION EXERCISED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON, IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT; THE JURISDICTION O F LD. CIT(APPEALS)-1, GURGAON, WHO ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 9 OF 11 PASSED THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER AGAINST WHICH A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL, IS ALSO NOT FREE FROM DOUBT; BECAUSE JURISD ICTION OF CIT(APPEALS) IS RELATED TO JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS IN ERROR IN DISREGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE ON MERTIS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; AND IN WRONGLY OBSERV ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANC ES / ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE A RE SETTING ASIDE ALL THE DISPUTES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER LAW . WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIRST DECIDE THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON. WE FURTHER DIRECT THAT TH E FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER BE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISING PROPER JURISDIC TION OVER THE ASSESSEE; ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. (G) THIS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF WITH AFORESAID DIRECTI ONS. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/03/2021 . SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE N ATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 25/03/2021 (POOJA) ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 10 OF 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.-393/DEL/2017. NAVEEN JAIN. PAGE 11 OF 11 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER