DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Vikas Jain, New Delhi

ITA 4075/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1218 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDE NT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-4075/DEL/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 NEW DELHI VS . VIKAS JAIN B-1/118, 2 ND FLOOR, PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI PAN : AAGPJ3118G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, ADV, MISS UMANG L UTHRA, ADV. MS. SURBHI GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI J.K.MISHRA, CIT-DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT (A)} VIDE DATED 29.04.2014 AND CHALLENGES THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,09,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS C ASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESS EE ON DATE OF HEARING 09.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.03.2019 2 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) 10.02.2011. CONSEQUENT, TO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENT IDENTIFIED AS MA-7/ANNX-A-12/PAGE 104 AND 103 FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES 697, UDYOG VIHAR , PHASE V, GURGAON, HARYANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS REL ATED TO THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY B-1/238, GF & FF, PASCHIM VIHA R, NEW DELHI FROM M/S CHAWLA BUILDWELL P. LTD. AS AGAINST THIS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD NOT ENTE RED INTO ANY SUCH TRANSACTION AND FURTHER THAT IN THE SEIZED DOC UMENT THERE WAS NO IDENTITY OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE ALLEGED P AYMENT/S WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT T HERE WERE NO DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS A LLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THERE NO SALE CONSIDERATION WAS STATED IN THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT AND FURTHER THAT THERE IS WAS NEITHER ANY SIGNATURE OF THE BUYER/SELLER NOR SIGNATURE/S OF ANY WITNESS/ES ON THE SAID DOCUM ENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION O F RS.2,09,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY HOLDI NG THAT THE PROPERTY TRANSACTION WAS EXECUTED FOR A TOTAL AMOUN T OF RS. 3 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) 2,60,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 49,50,000/- WAS PAID IN CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE I.E. RS. 2,09,50,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH WHICH HE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O WAS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE SEIZE D DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE AS SESSEES PREMISES AND, HENCE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF ANY ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AS SESSMENT FOR THE YEAR WAS NOT ABATED. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY AO WITHOUT BRING ING ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ASSUMPTIONS AND DRAWN IN FERENCES WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY INVESTIGATION OR VERIFICAT ION FROM THE ALLEGED SELLER. 2.2 THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED THE LEGAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO WAS UNTENABLE. HOWEVER, ON FACTS THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS EXP LANATION AND THE 4 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) AO HAD REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ALLEGATI ON. 2.3 AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2, 09,50,000/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2(A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF TH E HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3.0 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE LD. CI T (A) WAS WRONG IN DELETING THE ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO HAD GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF T HE SEARCH AND WAS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE TRANSACTION ENTERED IN TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE AS SESSEE HAD TRIED TO DISOWN THE DOCUMENT, BUT THE FACT REMAINED THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF A PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHERE A SUBSTANTIA L PORTION OF THE TRANSACTION AMOUNT HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 292C OF 5 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND ONUS WAS O N THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECTION 132(4A) AS THIS DOCUMENT HAD BEEN FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR ALSO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE AS UNDER:- 1. CIT VS. SONAL CONSTRUCTION [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT ] (DELHI) 2. CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR AGGARWALA [2011] 9 TAXMANN.COM 249 (DELHI)/[2011] 198 TAXMAN 194 (DELHI)/[2011] 331 IT R 510 (DELHI) 3. MAHABIR PRASAD RUNGTA VS. CIT [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 328 (JHANKHAND)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (JHARKHAND) 4. BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD. VS. ACIT [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 325 (KERALA)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (KERALA )/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (KERALA) 5. ASHOK KUMAR VS. CIT [2016] 69 TAXMANN.COM 129 (PATNA)/[2016] 239 TAXMAN 436 (PATNA)/[2016] 386 IT R 342 (PATNA)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (PATNA) 6. BALDEV RAJ VS. CIT [2010] 2 TAXMANN.COM 335 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) 4.0 IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADD ITION PER SE WAS UNTENABLE IN LAW AS THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISE S OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W HEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ITSELF HAS STATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMIS ES 697, 6 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON, HARYANA. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PANCHNAMAS (PLACED IN PAPER BOOK 4) WAS AT B-1/118, IIND FLOOR, PASHIM VI HAR, NEW DELHI, (PAPER BOOK PAGE 9), AT LOCKER NO.286 AT DEN A BANK, PASHCIM VIHAR, (PAPER BOOK PAGE 13), AT LOCKER NO.2 97, DENA BANK, PASCHIM VIHAR (PAPER BOOK PAGE 17) AND AT LOC KER NO.20, ING VAYSYA BANK, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT, THUS, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN REJE CTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL BEING FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARC H ON THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE SUCH A DDITION. 4.1 FURTHER, ON MERITS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD . AR THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CI T (A) AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING ANY INVEST IGATION OR VERIFICATION, HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY IND ULGING INTO SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE LD. AR INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 23 TO 2 AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THESE PAGES THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY PROPERTY NUMBER AND NO MENTION OF ANY BUYER EXCEPT HAVING SOME DETAILS WITH THE NAME CHAWLAJI. THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY INDULGING INTO SURMISES, HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION WAS THE SAME WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE 7 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY MRS. AROMA JAIN AND BY MR. VIKAS JAIN FROM CHAWLA BUILDWELL P. LTD. THE LD. AR EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY VERIFICAT ION FROM M/S CHAWLA BUILDWELL P. LTD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS VERY MUCH EVID ENT THAT NO VERIFICATION HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT FROM THE SELLER A ND FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT OF THE SELLER AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS CORRECT IN HO LDING THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT NO CORRESPO NDING ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER NOR ANY AC TION HAD BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE SELLER. 4.2 THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION O F THE LD. DR ON SECTION 132(4A) WAS NOT TENABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) READ WITH SECTION 292C WAS NOT APPLICABLE AS THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND IN TH E POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT FOR APPLYING THIS PRESUMPTION, IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION THA T THE DOCUMENT FOUND WAS IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF SUCH PERS ON AND FURTHER THAT THIS BEING A DEEMING FICTION IT HAS TO BE STRI CTLY CONSTRUED AND CANNOT BE EXPANDED SO AS TO APPLY IT TO A DOCUMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF SUCH PERSON. THE LD. AR 8 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) REITERATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE AS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT THIS DOCUME NT WAS FOUND FROM PREMISES 697, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON AN D NOT FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT. 4.4 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD N OT CONSIDERED THE SALE DEED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A CORRELATION I S BEING MADE OUT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS SALE DEED STANDS IN JOINT NAME/S AND THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE, HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE SALE DEED W HICH IS IN TWO NAMES, NAMELY MRS. AROMA JAIN AND MR. VIKAS JAIN. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ENTIRE AD DITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO B RING ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT H AD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO STATEMENT S WERE RECORDED EITHER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN T HE CASE OF MRS. AROMA JAIN WHICH COULD SUBSTANTIATE THE VIEW OF THE AO. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY COR ROBORATIVE MATERIAL, IT WAS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ASSUME THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9 ITA N O. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE RECORD. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE ON A DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES 697, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON. TH E AO HAS HELD THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED IS RELATABLE TO A PRO PERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH MRS. AROMA JAIN. THE AO, ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, HAS MADE OUT A CASE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS. 2,60,00,000/- AND HAD PAID ONLY RS. 49,50,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE AMOU NT HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH. THE LD CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE A DDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO IS WIT HOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. NOW, IN THE APPEAL BEFORE U S, THE LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 2(4A) READ WITH SECTION 292C WHEREIN THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT TH E DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION AND CON TROL THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AND FURTHER THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT ARE CORRECT. AS AGAINST THIS, THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THIS PRESUMPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THIS DOCUMENT, NOT HA VING BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS, ADMITTEDLY, AT 697, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON, WHICH IS 10 ITA NO. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) DIFFERENT FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE SEARCH ON ASSESS EE HAD TAKEN PLACE I.E. AT B-1/118, IIND FLOOR, PASCHIM VIHAR, N EW DELHI AS PER THE PANCHNAMA PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 4 AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION PER SE IS BEYOND JURISDICTION. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT NO ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE S ELLER AND THAT THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT ON SURMISES WITHOU T CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATION AND FURTHER THAT IN ANY CASE T HE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNSUSTAINABLE AS THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY TWO PERSONS. 5.1 WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT AND ON GOING THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT WE DO FIND THAT THERE ARE CER TAIN FIGURES STATED THEREIN AND THAT THE NAME CHAWLA JI IS ALS O STATED THEREIN. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE, AL ONG WITH MRS. AROMA JAIN, HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY FROM M/S CHAWL A BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. THUS, THERE CAN INDEED BE AN INFERENCE AS TO THAT WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MAY BE RELATABLE TO PROPERTY PURCHASED. HOWEVER, TO REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION, ONE NEEDS TO UNDERTAKE VERIFICATION, WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, HAS N OT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. WE ALSO NOTE FROM THIS DOCUMENT THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE AO WORKED OUT THE FIGURE OF RS. 2,60,00, 000/- AS BEING THE VALUE OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION. IT IS EQUALLY SUR PRISING THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLER. NOR AN Y ACTION 11 ITA NO. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) APPARENTLY HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE SELLER. WE AR E ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN JOINT-NAMES AND, THE REFORE,E THE ENTIRE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE AO IS ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERI AL TO SUBSTATNTIATE THAT THE ENTIRE MONEY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE ISSUES WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LO WER AUTHORITIES WHICH BOTH THE AO AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED T O CONSIDER. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) READ WITH SEC TION 292C IS AVAILABLE ONLY AGAINST THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSES SION OR CONTROL SUCH DOCUMENT IS FOUND IS ALSO CORRECT. FROM THE FA CTS STATED HEREINABOVE, APPARENTLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AT A PLACE OTHER THAN THE PLACE WHERE THE SEA RCH ON THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT. THUS, IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN POSS ESSION OR CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THAT BE SO, THEN THE PR ESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. FURTHER, IN CASE SUCH DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE FACTS ON RECORD ARE NOT CLEAR AND ALL THE ISSUE S AS STATED 12 ITA NO. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) HEREINABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO DUE CONSIDERAT ION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE EACH OF THE ABOVE ISSUES AND, THEREAFTER, F RAME A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS T O SAY, THE AO WILL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE PASSING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.03.2019. SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVA STAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.03.2019 *BR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 13 ITA NO. 4075/DEL/2014 (VIKAS JAIN) DATE OF DICTATION DICTATED ON DRAGON 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 19/03/2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 19/03/2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 19/03/2019 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