Dinesh Kumar Pundir, Saharanpur V. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Saharanpur

ITA 4075/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7936 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Tangible material; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 147; 131; 148; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4075/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DINESH KUMAR PUNDIR, C/O SH. DINESH MOHAN, ADV. 2, ANAND VIHAR, LANE NO. 1, CIRCULAR ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: BDSPK5736K) VS. ITO, WARD 3(1), SAHARANPUR UTTAR PRADESH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27.3.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW A ND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, N O SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S REQUIRED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT PRIOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT, NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED-.BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEE BY SH. ANKIT GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. 2 TANGIBLE MATERIAL, WHICH HAVE LIVE NEXUS TO THE INC OME, WHICH HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND MERELY RELIED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AIR, WHICH IS VAGUE, INCO RRECT AND BASELESS, HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IS I LLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE CIT (A) HA S ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148. 4. THE ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ARE ILLEGAL, UNJUST, HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND A RE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.25,13,675.00 AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS.63,675.00 ALONGWITH AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.L,00,000.00. 5. THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,50,000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, , WHICH IS H IGHLY ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THAT, THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE, THA T, THE CASH DEPOSITED, INT EH BANK IS DULY COVERED FROM TH E ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SHRI OM PRAKASH AGAINST THE S ALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN APPEARED U/S 1 31 AND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH AND ACCEPTED THE ABOVE STATED FACT. 7. THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPR ECIATE, THAT, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED , HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND UPHELD BY THE CIT (A) IS PURELY BASED ON PRESUMPTIO N AND 3 SURMISES AND CONJECTURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. 8. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A), IN VIEW OF T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING THE AD-HOC ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS, WHICH IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY, UNLAWFUL, HIGHLY EXCESSIVE, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND CANNOT BE JUS TIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 9. THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED AND THE OBSERVATIONS MA DE BY CIT (A) ARE UNJUST, UNLAWFUL AND BASED ON MERE SURM ISES AND CONJUNCTURES. THE ADDITIONS MADE CANNOT BE JUST IFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 10. THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN EVIDENCE PRODUCED, MATERIAL PLACED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS NOT BEE N PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE SAME DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS/ ALLOWANCES MADE. 11. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) ARE AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 12. THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY CHARGED AS THE APPELLANT COUL D NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE AND COULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE SAME IN CURRENT INCOME FOR PA YMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS ALSO WRONGLY WORKED OUT. 13. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE SAID APP EAL. ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJ UDICE AND ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TO EACH OTHER. 4 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CA SE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WERE S TARTED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.3.2016. IN RES PONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 3.6.2016 SHOWING NET TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 63,675/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 1,00,000 /-. LATER ON A NOTICSE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) DATED 9.8.2016 WERE ISSUED F IXING THE DATE FOR 19.8.2016. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 12.9.2016 ON WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE. ON 12.9.2016 NEITHER ANYBODY ATT ENDED THE OFFICE OF THE AO NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVE D. AGAIN A LETTER DATED 20.9.2016 ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FIXING THE DATE FOR 27.9.2016. ON 27.9.2016, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.9.2016 ON REQUEST AND DATE WAS FIXED FOR 7.10.2 016, 21.10.2016 AND 18.11.2016, BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATED THE P ROCEEDINGS, AS A RESULT THEREOF, AO HAS NOT ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DECID E THE ASSESSMENT ON MERITS U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSI ON OF DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 37,00,000/- DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT . VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 11.11.2016 THE ASSESSEE WA S SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 37,00,000/- W ITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, MADHOPUR AND DURING THE YEAR HE HAD SOLD AGR ICULTURE LAND FOR RS. 12,50,000. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DIFFERENCE OF RS. 24,50,000/- (37,00,000 12,50,00 0) DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAME 5 MAY NOT BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOWL INCOM E AT RS. 63,675/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 1,00,000/- ONLY, WHIC H IS HARDLY SUFFICIENT TO MEET HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES THE SOURCE OF RS. 24,50,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND T HE SAME WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSE SSED AT RS. 25,13,675/- VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2016 PASSED U/ S. 144/147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSES SEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 7.3.2018 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WI TH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL I.E. EXACT WORDINGS THE REASONS RECORD ED IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF KRISHAN K UMAR VS. ITO (ITA NO. 3985/DEL/2017) AY 2007-08 DATED 15.12.2017 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I NITIATED BY THE AO WERE HELD TO BE VOID. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT, A BENCH IN THE CASE OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VS. ITO (2015) 53 TAXMANN.COM 366 (DELHI TRIBUNAL). ON MERIT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE ILLEGAL, UNJUST, HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND ARE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD BY THE AO. THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY COMPUTED BY THE AO AT RS. 6 25,13,675/- AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 63,67 5/- ALONGWITH AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 1,00,000/-. THEREFORE, H E SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LEGAL AS WELL AS ON MERIT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE STATED THAT IN THIS CASE AO ISSUED NOTIC E U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2016 AFTER RECORDING REASONS TO BELIEVE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIE S U/S. 151 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS EXPLAI NED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS FROM SALARY AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HO WEVER, NO DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED ALOGNWITH THE SAID EXPLANATION. THE REFORE, AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION HAS R IGHTLY APPLIED HIS MIND AND RECORDED REASONS TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF TAN GIBLE MATERIAL AND VALIDLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH DO ES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE AND NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. ON MERITS OF T HE CASE, HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES BY THE ASSESSEE, AO HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS O F THE RECORD AVAILABLE AND RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF CASH A DVANCE RECEIVED FROM SH. OM PRAKASH AGAINST SALE OF LAND AND THE STATEME NT OF SH. OM PRAKASH COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CORROBORATING DETAILS LIKE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND DETAILS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND DATE WHEN HE HAS GIVEN AMOUNT OF RS. 26 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, LD. 7 CIT(A) RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,50,000/-, WHICH ALSO DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERE NCE. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I NOTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER TAKING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHOR ITY AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE AO IN THIS CASE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30-03-2016 AFTER RECORDING RE ASONS TO BELIEVE U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM HIGHER A UTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT. THE AR HAS STATED THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL THAT NO REASONS TO BELIEVE HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO TO FRAME THE REASONS TO BELIEVE. FURTHER, THE AR HAS S TATED THAT REASONS RECORDED ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE AO HAS FAILED TO SHO W ANY CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE MATERIAL AND THE OPINION FORMED. THE AR RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS INCLUDING THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF SH. BIR BAHADUR SINGH VS.ITO 6 8 SOT 197 AND KRISHAN KUMAR VS. ITO (ITA NO. 3985/DEL/2017) AY 20 07-08 DATED 15.12.2017. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN RESPONSE TO QUERY BEFORE THE AO T HAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS FROM SALARY AND A GRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE SAID EXPLANATION. 8 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING TH E INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.37 LAC IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND MATERIAL ON RECO RD AND RECORDED REASONS TO BELIEVE TO SHOW THAT INCOME OF RS.37 LAC HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THUS THE AO HAS RECORDED REASONS TO BEL IEVE ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL. THIS IS MORE RELEVANT AS THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING OF REASONS TO BELIEVE U/S 147 OF THE ACT, IT IS REL EVANT TO EXISTENCE OF THE REASONS. THEIR SUFFICIENCY IS NOT TO BE EXAMINED AT THAT STAGE. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS DRAWN BONAFIDE BELIEF AS REQU IRED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HAVIN G REGARD TO THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, IT IS NOTED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASES RE LIED UPON BY THE AR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE A O HAS VALIDLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE SAME WAS UPHELD, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPH OLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE LEGAL ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, REJ ECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE I.E. THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT . THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.37 LAC IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE, PART OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND FOR RS. 1250000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.2450000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT. IT HAS 9 BEEN EXPLAINED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TH AT HE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS.26 LAC AGAINST SALE OF HIS LAND VIDE KHASRA NO.57 SITUATED IN VILLAGE BHARIDINDARPUR, SAHARANPUR FROM SH.OM PRAKA SH S/O SH.SUJAN SINGH, R/O MULANA, AMBALA. HOWEVER, THE DEAL WAS NO T COMPLETED AND THE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED BACK IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. A FFIDAVITS TO THIS EFFECT FROM SH. OM PRAKASH AND THE ASSESSEE WERE FU RNISHED. THE AO HAS EXAMINED SH. OM PRAKASH U/S 131 OF THE ACT IN THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT AND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UN DER OATH IN WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED THE FACT OF GIVING ADVANCE OF RS.26 LA C IN CASH AGAINST PURCHASE OF LAND. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO HAS B EEN REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AT PAGE NO. 12-15. THE SUBMISS ION OF THE AR HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AT PAGE 16- 17. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT IN THE FORM OF CASH ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SH. OM PRAKASH AGAINST SALE O F LAND. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED AS IN THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT BY THE AO SH. OM PRAKASH COULD NOT F URNISH ANY CORROBORATING DETAILS LIKE AGREEMENT TO SELL, DETAI LS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND DATE WHEN HE HAS GIVEN AMOUNT OF RS.26 LAC TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO EXPLAIN SOIREE OF CASH DEPOS ITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. EVEN THE DAT ES AND SOURCE FROM WHICH ADVANCE HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK TO SH. OM PRAK ASH HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS RIGHTLY H ELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) 10 THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2450000 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD B Y THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND ACCOR DINGLY, REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED ON LEGAL AS WELL AS ON MERITS, AS ABOVE, THE OTHER GROUNDS BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, NEED NOT BE ADJUDICA TED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08-01-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:08/01/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES