Krishna Bhagwan Endowment, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 423/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3507 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY VERMA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Validity of assessment; Block assessment
• Section: 153A; 69; 148; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 423 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 KRISHNA BHAGWAN ENDOWMENT, S - 228, GREATER KAILASH II, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 9, NEW DELHI PAN : AAAJK0011D ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. P.C. YADAV, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. VIJAY VERMA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 08.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.02.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/11/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - XXVII , NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT - (A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,20,884/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL 2 CI RCLE - 9, NEW DELHI IN AS MUCH AS THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, ILLEGAL AND THUS, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THA T THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/ - HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE 8S COGENT EVIDENCE AND RATHER ON IRRELEVANT FACTS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES PRODUC ED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 5. THAT THE A PPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY/ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. B RIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BOOKED SPACE IN INDIRAPURAM H ABITAT CENTRE PROJECT WHICH WA S UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY M/S AEZ G ROUP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE A CTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF M/S AEZ GROUP ON 17/08/2011 AND DURING THE SEARCH CERTAIN HARD DISK WAS SEIZED . IN CERTAIN ELECTRONIC F ILES ( I.E. M . S . EX C EL SHEETS) MAINTAINED ON HARD DISC, A LIST OF PURCHASER S FROM WHOM RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS FOR SALE OF SPACE THROUGH CHEQUE AS WELL AS CASH RECEIVED INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE , WAS FOUND TO BE RECORDED. IN THE ROW OF THE EXCEL SHEET AT SERIAL N O. 30, CORRESPONDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SALE AMOUNT 3 OF RS.32,70,883 / - WHICH CONSISTS OF CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS.7,50,000 / - AND CASH AMOUNT OF RS.25,20,883 / - I S FOUND TO BE RECORDED . SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF M/S AEZ GROUP, A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT ON 10/02/2012 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO S EARCH, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT RETURN FILED UNDER SECTIO N 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 25/07/2006 MIGHT BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE DENIED OF HAVING MADE ANY CASH PAYMENT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NAME OF THE ANOTHER PURCHASER I.E. SH . I . E . SOOMAR , WHO BOOKED OFFICE SPACE IN THE SAME PROJECT, APPEARING IN THE EXCEL SHEET SEIZED, ACCEPTED THE CASH COMPONENT OF SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6.64 CRORES AND PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AD DUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF ITS CLAIM OF NO CASH INVESTMENT AND ALSO IN V IEW OF THE SURRENDERED MADE BY S H. I . E . SHOOMAR ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR EVIDENCES, HE HELD THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,20,884/ - AS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF UND ISCLOSED INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION. BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS CONTESTING THE ADDITION BOTH ON THE GROUND OF THE LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS. THE CONCLUDING PARA OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.1 IN CONCLUSION , WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER: - 4 (A) WE HAVE NOT INVESTED ANY CASH AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF BOOKING OF RS.500/ - SQ. FEET SPACE AT INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE. (B) NO PAPERS OR DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING CASH PAYMENT BY US H AS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF EXTENSIVE SEARCH AT OUR PREMISES. (C) THE PROPERTY NOT YET READY, ORIGINAL AMOUNT ONLY REFUNDED BY DEVELOPER AND ORIGINAL BOOKING CANCELLED. (D) AFFIDAVIT IS BEING FILED BY US TO RECONFIRM THAT NO CASH PAYMENT HAS BEEN M ADE BY US FOR THE ABOVE SPACE. (E) N O AMOUNT CAN BE DEEMED TO BE TREATED AS OUR INCOME MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND PRESUMPTIONS. 2.2 THE LD. CIT - (A) OBSERVED THAT POST DATED CHEQUE S WERE FOUND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE LAKHOTIA FAMILY ( PARTY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE) , AND THOSE CHEQUES ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DETAILS FOUND IN THE ELECTRONIC DATA A T THE PREMISES OF M/S AEZ GROUP. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT - ( A ) THE EVIDENCE FOUND AT THIRD - PARTY PREMISES IS A PROBABLE CAU SE THAT CAN BE LINKED TO THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE PART OF THEM WERE ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ( CHEQUE AMOUNT). IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , WHEN A PROBABLE CAUSE OF ACTION WA S UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EVIDENCE FOUND, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE LEVERAGE OF ADMITTING WHAT SUITS IT AND KEEP SILENT ABOUT THE REST. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT - ( A ) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 5 3. IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL , THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/ - FOR ALLEGED CASH COMPONENT APPEARING IN THE EXCEL SHEETS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S AEZ GROUP. THUS , ALL THE GROUNDS ARE HEARD TOGETHER. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDEN CE SUPPORTING THE CASE OF THE R EVENUE I.E. INVESTMENT IN CASH IN THE INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE , WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND , THUS , THERE BEING NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BE EN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS.3,21,00, 000/ - WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF SH. SUBHASH KHATTAR, WHOSE NAME WAS ALSO APPEARING AS PURCHASER OF PROPERTY IN INDIRAP URAM HABITAT CENTRE IN EX C EL SHEETS SEIZED FRO M THE PREMISES OF M/S AEZ GROUP AND HE WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 902/DEL/2015 IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. ON MERIT ALSO , THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THIRD - PARTY HAS SURRENDERED SOME AMOUNT IN HIS HANDS THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH SURRENDER BINDS ALL OTHER INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES AND THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 60/2017. THE LD. COUNSEL AL SO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENCH, FOLLOWING THE 6 DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA), DELETED SIMILAR ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF ASHA RANI LAKHOTIYA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO . 424/DEL/2015, DATED 16.01.2018. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION S, THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND, THUS , ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - (A) MIGHT BE SET - ASIDE. 5. THE LD. CIT( DR ) , ON THE OTHER HAND , SUBMITTED THAT DURING SEARCH , SEVERAL POST DATED CHEQ UES OR THEIR DETAILS RELATED TO INVESTMENTS BY LAKHOTIA FAMILY , I.E. , THE FAMI LY CONTROLLING THE ASSESSEE AOP, WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF MUKUNDRAY K. S HAH, REPORTED IN 290 ITR 433 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION CO ULD BE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT , EVEN IF , ADDITION ARISE OUT OF ENQUIRY RELATED TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN DISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IF DETAILS OF SUCH DISCLOSED INVESTMENT WERE FOUND DURING SEARCH. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT (DR) ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING SEARCH DATED 17/08/2011 IN THE CASE OF AEZ GROUP , THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE ISSUED NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT A S THE TIME LIMIT WAS AVAILABLE TILL 31/ 03/2003. ACCORDING TO HIM , THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO CASES WHERE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A IS ISSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT TO ISSUE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF HIM, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HELD LEGALLY INVALID. 7. ON THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION, HE RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - (A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. I N THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED, 7 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION PRIMARILY ON MERIT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S H . SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON MERIT ALSO. IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) ALSO THE ENTRIES OF CHEQUE AND CASH COMPONENT WERE FOUND IN THE EXCEL SHEET SEIZED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S AEZ GROUP. THE NAME OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS ALSO APPEARING IN THE SAME EXCEL SHEET. THUS , FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF SH SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH . SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF (I) THE DETAILS WRITTEN ON THE HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES AERENS GROUP, WHEREIN PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND CASH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AGAINST THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AT SR. NO.32; SHRI I.E.SOOMAR APPEARING AT SR. NO. 39 OF THE SAID HARD DISC HAD ADMITTED THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.6.64 CRORES BEING MADE IN THE SAID PRO JECT AND HAD PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME; (III) THE SAID HARD DISC CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN PART AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE BUT DENIED THE CASH PAYMENT SHOWN THEREIN ETC. IN OUR VIEW, A HUGE ADDITION OF RS.3,21,00,000 CANNOT BE MADE IN A CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT HAVING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. IT IS A PREVAILING PRACTICE IN THE DEALINGS OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES THAT CASH AMOUNT, IF ANY, OUT OF THE AGREED CONSIDERATION IS PAID DURING THE COURSE OF EXECUTION/REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED AND ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SALE DEED OR OTHER MODE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN EFFECTED. MERELY, BECAUSE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING IN THE SAID HARD DISC AND AMONGST OTHER INVESTORS ARE INVESTOR SHRI I.E. SOOMAR APPEARING IN THE SA ID HARD DISC HAS ADMITTED PAYMENT OF CASH AMOUNT, CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION, IN ABSENCE OF 8 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,21,00,000 IN CASH. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL (SUPRA) WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS UNDER SEC. 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT A PLACE OF THIRD PARTY WHICH INDICATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT BY PAYING CONSIDERATION IN CASH, IT WAS HELD BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PROVE BY EVIDENCE THAT SAID DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ANY ON MONEY TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE DOCUMENTS AT THE BEST ONLY SHOWED TENTATIVE/PROJECTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HELD THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. AGAIN, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALPHA IMPACT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT ADDITION TO ASSESSEE S INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN SALE OF LAND MERELY ON THE BASIS OF EMAIL RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON AND THERE BEING NO INDEPENDENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITIONS, WAS NOT JUST IFIED. BESIDES, WE ALSO FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 153 A OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF ABATEMENT OF ASS ESSMENT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, CANNOT BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153 A AND AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF AERENS GROUP WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON BOTH THE ABOVE ISSUES I.E. ON VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153A AND THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9 9. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ON THE MERIT AS WELL AS ON THE LEGALITY OF THE ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL (2013) TAXMANN.COM 353 AND HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALPHA IMPACT PRIVATE L IMITED , 45 TAXMANN.COM 2015, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ADDITION MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INDEPENDENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE SUPP ORTING SUCH ADDITIONS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA 60/2017 HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH . SUBHASH KHATTAR. 11. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO THE ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ONLY ON THE BASIS OF (I) DETAILS RECORDED IN EXCEL SHEET ON HARD DISK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT M/S AEZ GROUP , WHEREIN THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND CASH BEEN MENTIONED AGAIN ST THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AT S ERIAL NO. 30 OF THE LIST (II) THE SURRENDER MADE BY SH . I . E . SOOMAR , WHOSE NAME WAS APPEARING AT S ERIAL NO. 39 OF THE LIST (III) THE SAID HARD DISK CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN PART AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE BUT DENIED THE CASH PAYMENT THEREIN. 12. IN VIEW O F THE IDENTICAL FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE OF SH . SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA), RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE HOLD THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT CORROBORATING EVIDENCES, MERELY ON THE B ASIS OF SURRENDER MADE BY SH . I . E . SOOMAR I.E. THIRD - PARTY AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES 10 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.25,20, 884/ - . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. SINCE NO GROUNDS SPECIFIC TO CHALLENGING VALIDITY HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE US, ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES RAISED RELATED TO VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT OR MAKING ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEB . , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI