M/s. Roshan Lal Jain & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4392/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7124 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-II : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4392/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ROSHAN LAL JAIN & CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 21( 4) B-127, WHS KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACR4524R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VENKETESH CHAURASIA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 1.7.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT (A)] IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON THE FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INITIATION OF THE 2 PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147, READ WITH SECTION 148, IS BAD AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THE CONDITION AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED A.O. ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ARE VAGUE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,16,500/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL MONEY UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 ,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ULS 68 OF THE ACT. 3 (II) THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE DESPITE THE ASSESS EE BRINGING ALL MATERIAL & EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. (III) THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY ERROR OR DEFECT IN THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. (IV) THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT BRINGING, ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,500 /- AS THE COMMISSION INCOME. (II) THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE ARBITRARILY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS FOR THE SAME. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION DESPITE THE SAME BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF SOME PERSON WITHOUT GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE AND IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN 4 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING THE INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY HIM TO A LOGICAL END. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED E-RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 14.11.2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,82,110/-. THE SAID RE TURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. SUBSEQ UENTLY, INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING O F THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,00,000/- FROM M/S TAURUS IRON AND STEEL CO. (P) LTD. AND M/S THAR STE EL (P) LTD. RESPECTIVELY OF RS. 5,50,000/- EACH. ON THE BASIS O F THIS INFORMATION, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 OF T HE ACT AFTER RECORDING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME CHARGEAB LE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.3.2014. THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 15.4.2014 SUBMITTED COPY OF THE REVISED RETUR N STATING THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WERE ALSO SUPPLIED OT THE ASSESSEES AR ON 24.4.2014. THE AR VIDE LETTER DAT ED 25.8.2014 FILED 5 OBJECTIONS TO REOPENING OF CASE AND ISSUANCE OF N OTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 26.8.2014. THEREAFTER ORDER U/S 143(3) /147 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 22.9.2014 AFTER ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U /S. 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 11,00,000/- AND COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 16 ,500/- ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS. 15,98,610/-. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE APPEAL ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.7.2016 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEEE AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE LEGAL ISSUE I.E. REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S. 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS WELL AS ON MERITS. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 224 ATTACHING THEREWITH THE COPY OF ACKN OWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME; COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME; CO PY OF AUDIT REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT, COPY OF NOTI CE U/S. 148 DATED 27.3.2014, COPY OF REPLY DATED 15.4.2014 ALON GWITH COPY OF ITR AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS; COPY OF NOTICE U/S . 142(1) DATED 9.7.2014; COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.7.2014 ALONGWITH V ARIOUS DETAILS; COPY OF REPLY DATED 28.7.2014 ALONGWITH COPY OF CHA LLAN OF MIN. OF COMPANY AFFAIRS AND COPY OF FORM 2; COPY OF REPLY D ATED 8.8.2014; COPY OF REPLY DATED 25.8.2014; COPY OF REPLY DATED 3.9.2014; COPY OF REPLY DATED 8.9.2014; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE 6 CIT(A) ON 28.9.2015; COPY OF CONTINUED SUBMISSIONS- I FILED BEFORE CIT(A) ON 16.12.2015 AND COPY OF CONTINUED SUBMISSI ONS-II FILED BEFORE CIT(A) ON 17.6.2016. HE STATED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSUMING JURISDI CTION U/S. 147 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDI TIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 147 TO 151 OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 AND THE REASONS RECORDED ARE INVALID AND CONTRARY TO LAW AN D FACTS AND THERE IS NO SATISFACTION AS PER LAW U/S. 151 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE COPY OF REASONS FOR REOPE NING THE CASE U/S. 148 AND STATED THAT NO PROPER REASONS WERE RECORDED ; NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE MATERIALS RELIED UPON AND THE BELIEF FO RMED FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME; NO APPLICATION OF MIND; NO PR OPER SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148; NO IN DEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. I T WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INVESTIGATION WING INFORMATION WHICH SUFFERS WITH SERIOUS DEBILIT Y AND LACKS DEFINITENESS, WITHOUT DESCRIBING THE BASIC ASPECTS OF ALLEGED TRANSACTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WHOLE ACTION OF THE AO GETS VITIATED. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE ITAT DECISION DATED 09.1.2015 IN THE CASE OF G&G PHARMA INDIA LIMITED VS. ITO PASSED IN ITA NO. 3149/DEL/2013 (AY 2003-04 ) IN WHICH THE JUDICIAL MEMBER IS THE AUTHOR. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ITAT DATED 9.1.2015 HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE 7 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION DATED 08. 10.2015 IN ITA NO. 545/2015 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT-4 VS. G&G PHARMA IN DIA LTD. IN THIS REGARD, HE FILED THE COPIES OF THE AFORESAID DECISI ONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS OF THE AO MAY BE QUASHED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE AO HAS PROPER LY RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING BY DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, H ENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. IN MY VIEW, IT IS VERY M UCH NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE IS SUE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WHIC H IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A Y 20 07-08 ON 14.11.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,82,111/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 24.10.2008. DIT(LNV.) UNIT-IV, NEW DELHI DURING THE COURSE OF 8 INVESTIGATION IN TNE CASE OF SH. TARUN GOYAL CREATE D A NUMBER OF PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES AND FIRMS FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE DIRECTORS OF T HESE COMPANIES WERE HIS EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN HIS OFFI CE AS PEONS, RECEPTIONISTS ETC. THE DOCUMENTS WERE GOT SIGNED FROM THESE EMPLOYEES. A NUMBER OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN VARIOUS BANKS WERE OPENED IN THE NAMES OF THESE COMPANIES AND HIS EMPLOYEES, IN WHICH HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE. LATER CHEQUES WERE ISSUE T O VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES, DISGUISING THE WHOLE TRANSAC TION AS GENUINE. DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION IT W AS ESTABLISHED THAT SH. TARUN GOYAL HAS FLOATED ABOUT 90 COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES. THE COMPANIES FLOATED BY SH. TARUN GOYAL A RE NOT CARRYING OUT ANY GENUINE ACTIVITY AND ARE MEREL Y BEING USED TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION BY THE DIT(LNV.) IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE NETWORK OF COMPANIES RUN BY SH. TARUN GOYAL IS ONLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES AND ARE NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS, HENCE THESE COMPANIES ARE 'BOGUS'. 9 IT IS NOTICES; FROM THE LIST OF ENTRIES OF BENEFICI ARIES THAT THE ASSESSEE M/S ROSHAN LAL JAIN & CO. P. LTD. HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THE COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY SH. TARUN GOYAL DURING THE FY 2006-07 (A Y 2007-08) AS PER DETAILS HEREUNDER:- BENEFICIARIES NAME OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER AMOUNT M/S ROHAN LAL JAIN & CO. TAURUS IRON & STEEL CO. P. LTD. 550000 M/S ROSHAN LAL JAIN CO. PVT. LTD. THAR STEELS P. LTD. 550000 IN VIEW OF THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE DIT(LNV.), NEW DELHI, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE RECORDS, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED ITS OWN CASH TO ARRA NGE A CREDIT ENTRY FROM THE COMPANY CONTROLLED BY SH. T ARUN GOEL. THE CASH PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTS ITS OWN INCOME' FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATE RIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. I HAVE THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 11,00,000/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2007-08. THUS, THE SAME IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 1471148/- OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 .' 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, AS AFORESAID, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND SO AS TO COME TO AN INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS RE ASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED DURING THE YEAR. IN MY VIEW THE 10 REASONS ARE VAGUE AND ARE NOT BASED ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL AS WELL AS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE AO HAS MECHANICALLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIRE CTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INV.), NEW DELHI. KEEPING IN VIEW OF T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASE LAW APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE REOPENING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT . YEAR IN DISPUTE IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. MY VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT/DECISION:- PR. CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO. 545/2015 DATED 8.10.2015 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR EN TRIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A S INGLE DATE I.E. 10TH FEBRUARY 2003, FROM FOUR ENTITIES WH ICH WERE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, THE AO STATED: 'I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVESTIGATION WING AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK 11 ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES.' THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHET HER THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS THAT HE TA LKS ABOUT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT T HOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SO CALLE D ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE AO, IF HE HAD IN FA CT UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TEND ERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS FILED ON 14TH NOVE MBER 2004 AND WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO HA VE SIMPLY CONCLUDED: 'IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BAN K BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES'. IN THE CONSIDERED VI EW OF THE COURT, IN LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED WITH SUFFI CIENT CLARITY BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIONS DISCU SSED HEREINBEFORE, THE BASIC REQUIREMENT THAT THE AO MUS T APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS IN ORDER TO HAVE RE ASONS 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 CIT(A) TO SHOW HOW THE CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE MATERI ALS 12 PRODUCED DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE COUR T WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS IS IN THE NATURE 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 ASSESSMENT WAS VALID, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF T HE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS TO, APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS, CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. UNLE SS THAT BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED A POST MORTEM EXERCISE OF ANALYSING MATERIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT RESCUE AN INHE RENTLY DEFECTIVE REOPENING ORDER FROM INVALIDITY . 14. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 15. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THE AFORESAID ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR A ND IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND IS SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF G&G PHARMA (SUPRA). HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT-4 VS. G&G PH ARMA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) I DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF THE 13 ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY QU ASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALLOW THE LEGAL ISSUE. SINCE I HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS AF ORESAID, THE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT BEING DEALT WITH BEING ACADEMI C IN NATURE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 03-1-2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03-1-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.