Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4099/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6473 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ ROHIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 68; 148; 6; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 4099 & 4100 /DEL/201 5 A.Y RS . : 1999 - 2000 & 2000 - 2001 M/S PARAMOUNT BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD. F-7, THIRD FLOOR,EASTOFKAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065 (PAN:AABCP9907D) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), ROOM NO. 317B 3 RD FLOOR, CR BLDG., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.D. KAPILA, ADV., SH. PNAYUSH SHARMA, SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, ADV. & SH. PANKAJ ROHIA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM PER H.S. SIDHU, JM PER H.S. SIDHU, JM PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE TWO APPEALS AGAINST T HE SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORDERS BOTH DATED 31.3.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 199 9-2000 & 2000-01. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THE FIGURES INVOLVED, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 4099/DEL/.2015 (AY 1999-2000) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER DESPITE THE FAC T THAT APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAD METICULOUSLY REPETITIVELY APPEAR ED BEFORE VARIOUS CIT(A)'S FROM 2005 ONWARDS AND PLACED VOLUM INOUS EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WHICH HAVE ALL BEEN IGNORED BY CIT(A) ALTOGETHER. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY H OLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS VALIDLY REOPENED U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR A. Y. 1999-2000 WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. 4. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER EVEN THOUGH IT IS ADMITTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NEVER ISSUED OR SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CJT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME OF RS. 20,26,502/- U/S 10(1) OF THE ACT 1961. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS (INCLUDING WRITTEN 3 SUBMISSIONS) MADE BY APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y 2001-02 ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT TAKIN G INTO ACCOUNT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WHICH WAS ENTIRELY DIF FERENT FROM A.Y. 2001-02. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO RE -COMPUTE INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C OF THE ACT. 9. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER , OR ADD FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSSE SSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 1999-2000 ON 22.2.2001 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 18,97,061/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 OF RS.20,26,502 IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.1 43(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, ON 12.9.2000. THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED. ORD ER U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS PASSED AND RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,30,62,80 0/- CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE WERE ADDED U/S. 68 OF THE AC T. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 14,09,220/- VIDE HIS ORDER DA TE 18.3.2005. 4 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 18.3.20 05, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 31.3.2015 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 31.3.2015 PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ARGUED THE GROUND NO. 4 I.E. LEGAL GROUND AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID-A B-INITIO AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAME POSITION HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, HE STATED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE ILLEGAL, UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBM ISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE 5 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE ILLEGAL, UNSUS TAINABLE AND UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED BY THE AO IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. MY VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, HO NBLE HIGH COURTS, COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT DECISIONS:- ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] HELD: IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 143 (2). THE ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) IS MANDA TORY AND NOT PROCEDURAL. IF THE NOTICE IS NOT SERVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID REASSESSMENT-----NO TICE----- ASSESSEE INTIMATING ORIGINAL RETURN BE TREATED AS F RESH RETURN--- REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED DESPITE ASSESSEE FILING AFFIDAVIT DENYING SERVICED OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)---- ASSESSING OFFICER NOT REPRESENTING BEFORE COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) THAT NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED---- REASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID DUE TO WANT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)--- INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, SS. 143, 147, 148(1), PROV.----ITO V. R.K. GUPTA [308 I TR 49 (DELHI)TRIBU., CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ISSUE INVOLVED: 'WHETHER NON-ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, MADE THE WHOLE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER NULL AND VOID AND BAD IN LAW, DESPITE THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING RAISED ANY OBJECTION BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT? ' HELD: IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD T HAT SECTION 292BB CURES THE DEFECTS IN SERVICE OF NOTICE BUT SE CTION 6 292BB IS 'CONFINED TO ONLY SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER THIS ACT AND THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO 'ISSUANCE OF NOTICE' UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. IT DOES NOT LA Y DOWN THAT IF A MANDATORY NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FIXED UNDER THE LAW, THEN SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHIN TIME. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT RESORT CANNOT BE TAKE N BY THE REVENUE TO SECTION 292BH TO GIVE A GO-BYE TO MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WITHIN THE STATUTORY FIXED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION I43(2) OF THE ACT. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COUR CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COUR CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COUR CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COURT OF ALL AHABAD. T OF ALLAHABAD. T OF ALLAHABAD. T OF ALLAHABAD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: TC(A). NO. 159 OF TC(A). NO. 159 OF TC(A). NO. 159 OF TC(A). NO. 159 OF 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] RELEVANT PARA REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: '13. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 ALSO USES THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRE D TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139'. THUS, UNDERSTANDING THIS PROVIS IONS IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, ON TH E FACTS AVAILABLE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, COMPLIANCE OF THE PRO CEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTIONS 142 AND 143 (2) IS MANDATORY. O N THE ADMITTED FACT THAT BEYOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142( 1), THERE WAS NO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2), AND IN THE LIGH T OF THE FACT THAT THE VERY BASIS OF THE REASSESSMENT WAS THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISCLOSING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISIN G ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASS ESSEE HAD 7 REQUESTED THE OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT TH ERE WAS TOTAL FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE FROM COMPLYING W ITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , WHICH IS MANDATORY ONE AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT. ALPINE ELECTRONICS AS ALPINE ELECTRONICS AS ALPINE ELECTRONICS AS ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [( 2012) 341 ITR 247 IA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 IA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 IA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (DEL) (DEL) (DEL) (DEL) HELD: THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT IS MANDATORY AND IS NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL PROCEDUR AL REQUIREMENT. OMISSION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) IS NOT CURABLE AND THE REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. S. 143(2) IS APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 & 148. JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) - -- - SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. - -- - A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. - -- - 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 09 09 09 REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 WITHOUT ISSUE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ILLEGAL. RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO - -- - (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) LIMITATION FOR RE-ASSESSMENT- SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IN TIME - A.Y.1995-96. IT WAS PRESUMED BY LEGAL FICTION THAT A RETURN FILED ULS 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WOULD BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED IT S RETURN IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF FIL ING THE RETURN U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS MANDATORY, BUT THE NOTICE HAD BE EN SERVED BEYOND 12 MONTHS. THEREFORE, AS THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED BY LIMIT ATION, NO RE- ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE U/S 143(3) R/W S.147 OF TH E ACT.- ITAT DELHI F SPECIAL BENCH. CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 8 WE ALSO MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE QUESTION OF SECTI ON 292BB OF THE ACT PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE REVENU E HEREIN CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT IN INCO ME TAX APPEAL NO.286 OF 20 11, DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 23, 201 1 (CLT V. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL SINCE REPORTED IN [201 2L 345 ITR 29 (ALL)) AND THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 292BB IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE AUTHORI TY DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED FURTHER AND MALE ASSES SMENT. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER :- -- - MR. JAINS CONTENTION THAT A BELATED RETURN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED AS AN INVAL ID RETURN, PRIMA FACIE, APPEARS TO BE MERITED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAID QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE AS THE AO HA D ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2011, INTER ALIA, CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS RETURN. FURTHER, ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2007, THE AO WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF FILING ITS REUTNR AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS REQUESTED. THE AO HAD ACCEDED TO HIS REQUEST, WHICH WOULD BE W HOLLY UNNECESSARY IF THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A BELATE D RETURN WOULD BE INVALID. THUS, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE IGNORED BY THE AO. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW 9 THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I N DISPUTE IS INVALID, VOID ABNITIO AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A S WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER STAND CANCELLED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ITA NO. 4100/DEL/2015 (AY 2000-01 ) IS CONCERNED, FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW AS TAKEN IN ITA NO. 4 099/DEL/2015 (AY 1999-2000), AS AFORESAID, THE APPEAL NO. 4100/DEL/2 015 (AY 2000-01) STANDS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/03/2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 10/03/2017 SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES