M/s. Vasundra Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4014/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8181 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V S RASTOGI
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. H.S.SIDHU, JM ITA NO. 4014/DEL./2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACV4114F APPELLANT BY : SH. V. S.RASTOGI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SH. V.R.SON BHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.04.2016 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2014 OF THE C.I.T.(A)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI. FOLL OWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 2 BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB- INITIO. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND I N MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS IN PURSUANCE THEREOF. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 9 LACS RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT TOWARDS SALE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE AS INCOME U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DESPITE SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT SECTION 68 WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A SITUATION. 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY O F REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.10.2004 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 91,954/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO RECEIVED THE INFORMAT ION FROM THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI IN MARCH , ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 3 2011 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES OF RS. 9,00,000/- FROM FEDERAL BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. CHANDER PRABHU FINANCIAL SERVICES WHICH IS A SHELL COMPANY FLOATED/ CONTROLLED BY SH. S.K.GUPTA, DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO THEREAFTER INITIATED THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE OF THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.4.2011 DE CLARING THE SAME INCOME WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 4.10.2004. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED OBJECTI ON ON 5.9.2011 AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT BUT THE SAME WERE REJECTED BY THE AO. THEREAFTE R, THE AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.9,00, 000/-, AT AN INCOME OF RS. 9,90,950/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF INITIATIO N OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 TO THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CI T(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AND UPHELD THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 4 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUT SET STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 11 MARCH, 2016 OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I.E. ITAT DELHI G BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF S UNAINA TOWERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-23, NEW DE LHI IN ITA NO. 4514/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT S INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE ADDITION MADE WAS OF RS. 25,00,000/- WHILE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WAS OF RS. 9,00,000/-. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO STATED THAT THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS INV OLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNAINA TOWERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ( SUPRA). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVIN G SIMILAR FACTS WAS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 4514/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUNAINA TOWERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-23, NEW DELHI WH ICH HAS ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 5 BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH G NEW DELH I VIDE ORDER DATED 11 MARCH, 2016 AND THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 6 TO 8 OF THE SAID ORDER WH ICH READ AS UNDER : 6. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY THE RECENT DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G&G PHARMA IN DIA LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER DISCUSSING SEVERA L DECISIONS CITED BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO COME THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION VIDE PARA NOS. 12 AND 13 OF TH E DECISION, WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT CASE, ARE BEING REP RODUCED HEREUNDER: 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR EN TRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A SINGLE D ATE I.E. 10TH FEBRUARY 2003, FROM FOUR ENTRIES WHICH WERE TE RMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE A.O. STATE D: I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVE STIGATION WING AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHET HER THE A.O. APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS THAT HE TALK S ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE M ATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLED ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WOULD NOT HAVE B EEN DIFFICULT FOR THE A.O., IF HE HAD IN FACT UNDERTAKE N THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHIC H THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TENDERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN , WHICH ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 6 WAS FILED ON 14TH NOVEMBER 2004 AND WAS PROCESSED U NDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FAC IE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE A.O. TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED: IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE CONSI DERED VIEW OF THE COURT, IN LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED WI TH SUFFICIENT CLARITY BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIO NS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, THE BASIC REQUIREMENT THAT THE A.O. MUST APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS IN ORDER TO HA VE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. MR. SAWHNEY TOOK THE COURT THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO SHOW HOW THE CIT(A) DISCUSS ED THE MATERIALS PRODUCED DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL . THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS IS IN THE NAT URE OF A POST MORTEM EXERCISE AFTER THE EVENT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. WHILE THE CIT MAY HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT WAS VALID, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS, CONCLUDE THAT HE H AS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. UNLESS THAT BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIR EMENT IS SATISFIED, A POST MORTEM EXERCISE OF ANALYZING MATE RIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT RESCU E AN INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE REOPENING ORDER FROM INVALIDIT Y. 14. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUES TION OF LAW ARISES. 7. NOW, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IN VIEW OF THE RATIOS LAID D OWN IN THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RECENTLY PRONOUNCED ON 08.10.2015 TO VERIFY THE CON TENTION OF ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 7 THE LEARNED AR THAT WHILE FORMING THE BELIEF THAT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE BAS IS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY IT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT APPLIED HER MIND. THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRESE NT CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 2. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI, A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDU CTED IN THE S.K. GUPTA GROUP OF CASES ON 20.11.2007, ARUNAC HAL BUILDING, 19-BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-1100 01 AND 1007-1008, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19- BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-1100 01. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDI NGS SEVERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN TALLY FOR THE F.Y. 2003-04, BESIDES VARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTS/ACCOUNTS W ERE FOUND. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY & ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. SH. S.K. GUPTA ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BE EN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS/BENEFICIARIES THROUGH A LARGE NO. OF SHELL COMPANIES/CONCERNS FLOATED BY & EFFECTIVELY CONTROL LED BY HIM. HE OPERATED A NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS IN THE SAME BANK/BRANCH OR IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES, IN THE NAMES OF THESE SHELL COMPANIES/CONCERNS. AFTER RECEIVING CASH FROM THE BENEFICIARIES, SH.S.K. GUPTA USED TO DEPOSIT THE SA ME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE THESE SHELL COMPANIES/CO NCERNS. THEN HE USED TO ROUTE THE ENTRIES THROUGH TWO TO FOUR ACCOUNTS OF T HESE SHELL COMPANIES/CONCERNS BEFORE ULTIMATELYTRANSFERRING SA ME TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF TIRE BENEFICIARIES TO GIVE THE COLOR OF GENUINENESS TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. 3. FURTHER, AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM TH E ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI, M/S. SUNAINA TOWERS P VT. LTD. HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.25,00,000 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 778926 DATED 10.10.2003, FROM THE FEDERAL BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. CHANDERPRABHU FINANCIAL SERVICES/CHANDERPRABHU FINA NCE ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 8 & SECURITIES LTD., A SHELL COMPANY/CONCERN FLOATED/ CONTROLLED BY SHRI S.K. GUPTA. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT AMOUNT/INCOME OF RS.25,00,000 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 5. ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1. 8. THE VERY PERUSAL OF THE REASONS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THESE WERE BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ACIT, C ENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI AFTER NARRATION OF WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY RECORDED THAT SHE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AMOUNT/INCOME OF RS.25 LACS HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IN THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, I T HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT SUCH TYPE O F CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHETHER TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATER IALS THAT HE TALKS ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESC RIBE WHAT THOSE MATERIAL WERE. HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVE D FURTHER THAT ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO-CALLED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF H E HAD IN FACT UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOU NTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THAT WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 9 UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES. THE BASIC REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MUST APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL IN ORDER TO FORM REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUCH BASIC REQUIRE MENT WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PROCE EDINGS UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT IS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US. AS IT IS EVIDENT IN THE REASONS RECORDED, REPRO DUCED HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY RECORDED THE INFORMATION RECEIVE D FROM HER COLLEAGUE AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY EXERCISE OF HE R MIND ON THOSE INFORMATION TO FORM HER OWN REASONS TO BEL IEVE FOR THE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OF RS.25 LACS, HAS ISSUED NO TICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), HOLD THAT THE RE ASONS TO BELIEVE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PR ESENT CASE TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE A CT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF HER OWN MIND ON THE INFORMATION RECE IVED WERE NOT AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS O F THE LAW LAID DOWN UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE INI TIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID AND NOR THE ASSESSMEN T MADE IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SAID INITIATION OF THE PROCEE DINGS. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 147 READ WITH 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IN QUESTION IS THUS HELD AS VOID-AB- INITIO. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALL OWED. 7. SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE A RE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNAINA TO WERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA), SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E ORDER DATED 11 MARCH, 2016 IN ITA NO. 4514/DEL/2013 FOR T HE ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE INITIATION OF THE PROCE EDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IS HELD T O BE INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREAFTER U/S 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28/04/2016). SD/- SD/- (H.S.SIDHU) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 / 04/2016 *B.RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.4014/DEL/2014 VASUNDRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 11 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27.04.2016 2. DRAFT PLACE D BEFORE AUTHOR 27.04.2016 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.