Hemant Mittal, Hisar V. ITO ward-2, Hisar

ITA 5161/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1229 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 292BB; 143(2); 43; 13; 22; 147; 68; 148; 15; 139

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH SMC (2), NEW DELHI] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5161/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI HEMANT MITTAL 520/1 PRITI NAGAR HISSAR HARYANA . PAN : ARLMP1022E VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 HISSAR HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI GAUTAM JAIN , ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI R . K. GUPTA SR DR DATE OF ONLINE HEARING: 27/05/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL IS HEARD ON VIRTUAL MODE. LD. COUNSEL A ND LD. DR BOTH ARGUED THEIR CASE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PREMISE S. THEY ADDRESSED AND ASSISTED US IN DECIDING THE DISPUTE T HROUGH TELECOMMUNICATION MEDIUM. P A G E | 2 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR 2. MR. HEMANT MITTAL, INDIVIDUAL, FILES THIS APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HI SSAR [THELD. CIT (A)] DATED 25 TH OF MARCH 2019 RAISING SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS. A. GROUND NUMBER [1] OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ACTION U/S147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . B. GROUND NUMBER [2] OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE LD. AO FOR THE R EASON THAT NOTICE U/S147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO WARD 5, HISSAR AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 HISSAR. C. GROUND NUMBER [3] CHALLENGES THE ADDITION OF 6 94000/ WITH RESPECT TO THE LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE FROM FIVE DIFFERENT PERSONS ADDED BY THE LD . AO. D. GROUND NUMBER [4] CHALLENGES THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF 2 LAKHS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE ADDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. E. GROUND NUMBER [5] OF THE APPEAL CHALLENGES THE ACTI ON OF REVENUE IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF 88,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOVE PROFIT. F. GROUND NUMBER [6] OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S234A & 234B. 3. ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS PER LETTER DATED 22 MAY 2020. THE ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS RAISED UNDER (I) THAT THE NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT DATED 9/11/20 16 IS INVALID AS THE SAME WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE SP OT ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFOR E THE P A G E | 3 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 28/12/2016 U/S147/143 (3) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION A ND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. (II) THAT ADDITION MADE AND DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT APPE AL ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF U/ S 68 OF THE ACT AND ALLEGED LOW NET PROFIT ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT AS DETERMINED IN THE REASONS RECORDED U/S148 (2) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ILLEGA L AND UNTENABLE 4. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND NUMBER [1 ] RAISED SPEAKS THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTI ON BECAUSE AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT STATU TORY NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE DATE OF FIL ING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON OURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VERSUS SOCIETY FOR WORLDWIDE INTE RBANK FINANCIAL TELECOMMUNICATION [323 ITR 249] AND SEVERAL OTHER D ECISIONS OF SMC BENCHES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUND N UMBER [2]IS BEING RAISED AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PRESENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S147 READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT AS THEY HAD TO BE C ONFINED TO THE REASONS RECORDED U/S147 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE LEGAL GROUND AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGSOR IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. THE HONOUR ABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COR PORATION LTD VERSUS CIT (229 ITR 383) HAS HELD THAT WHERE ALL TH E MATERIAL FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS PUREL Y LEGAL IN NATURE, SUCH GROUND SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT ANY STA GE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VERSUS VARA S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED (284 ITR 80) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE RAISED EVEN IF NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE P A G E | 4 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO ARGUE THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION AND THAT THE INSTANT ASSE SSMENT FRAMED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE MR. GAUTAM JAIN, ADVOCATEREITERATED ABOVE SUBMISSION AND STATE D THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS MAY BE ADMITTED AS THOSE GROUNDS GO TO THE ROOT OF MATTER AND ARE LEGAL IN NATURE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NO FRESH FACTS REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATE D. THEREFORE,IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OBJECTED TO IT AND STATED THAT THESE ARE AFTER THOUGHTS. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTION AND P ERUSED APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. WE FIND THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, ARE LEGAL IN NATURE, NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED, AND THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED. THEREFORE, WE A DMIT BOTH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF CASE SHOWS THAT LD. AO INITIATED ACTION U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE BASIS OF ANNUA L INFORMATION RETURN [AIR] INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE ITD SYSTE M THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF 12,97,900/ IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH INDUSIND BANK DURING FINANC IAL YEAR 2009 10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11.LD. AO ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FO R RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE AFTER RECORDING REASO NS IN THIS REGARD AND AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVAL, ITO WARD 5, HISSAR ISSUED NOTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT ON 14/3/2016. SUBSE QUENTLY THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PRESENT AO ITO WARD-2, HISSAR. NOTICE U/S142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 6/7/ 2016 ASK ING ASSESSEE TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME AND FURNISH REQUISITE INFOR MATION. IT DID NOT P A G E | 5 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR EVOKE ANY RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ANOT HER NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S142 (1) ON 05/7/2016. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT HOWEVER, NO C OMPLIANCE WAS MADE. AS THERE WAS, NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART O F ASSESSEE, LD. AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S144 OF THE ACT ON 7/8/2016. IN RESPONSE TO THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 9/11/2016 DECLARING INCOME OF 86580/-. THEREAFTER ON RECEIPT OF RETURN OF INCOME, NOTICE U/S143 (2)/142 (1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITHQUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED ON 9/11/2016 ITSELF A ND SERVED UPON THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SPOT. 5. PURSUANT TO THAT, RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS FURNISHE D BY ASSESSEE. LD. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED UNSECURED LOA N FROM FIVE DIFFERENT PERSONS AMOUNTING TO 694000/. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THESE UNSECURED L OANS ALONG WITH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE LEN DERS. ASSESSEE FURNISHED REQUISITE DETAILS SUCH AS PASSBOOK OF T HOSE LENDERS. THE LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE ONUS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO NOTED THAT ALL THESE CREDITORS HA VE THE LOW BANK BALANCES SPEAKS ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE LENDERS. FURTHER,ON FEW OCCASIONS CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED. F URTHER IMMEDIATE AFTER DEPOSIT OF CASH ON SUCH OCCASIONS C HEQUES WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. LD. AO NOTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED SUCH INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF LENDERS ON LY ON 23/12/2016. AS THE MATTER WAS TIME BARRING, IT WA S NOT FEASIBLE TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO LENDERS AND EXAMINE THEM ON THI S ISSUE. THEREFORE,LD. AO HELD THAT DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF I NFORMATION IS A STRATEGY TO AVOID PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF THE CREDIT ORS. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT 6,94,000/ RECEIVED IN THE SHAPE OF UNSECURED LOAN IS IN UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ADDED IT TO TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT FROM ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CAS H DEPOSIT OF P A G E | 6 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR 2 LAKHS ON 29/05/2009. ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION AND THEREFORE IT WAS ALSO ADDED TO TOTA L INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE NOTING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A HYDRAULIC EXCA VATOR MACHINE ON 30/05/2009 FOR WHICH TOTAL RECEIPT HAS BEEN SHO WN AT RS. 21,82,550/. ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT RATE OF 30% ON IT. THEREFORE AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESS EE DECLARED THAT PROFIT ARE 86567/- ONLY WHICH GIVES NET PROFIT RATIO OF 4% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT. HE NOTED THAT RATE THAT PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS RIDICULOUSLY LOW, THOUGH MACHINE IS RUN ON RENT, WHICH IS CHARGED ON HOURLY BASIS. HE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OPTED FOR PRESUMPTIVE RATE OF TAXATION U/S44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. LD. AO NOTED THAT, AS ASSESSEE IS NOT OPERATING ANY GOO DS CARRIAGE BUT A HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR MACHINE, IT DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF VEHICLE USED IN PLYING AND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. THEREFORE HE APPLIED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD AND ESTIMATED TH E PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO 1,74,604/-. AS ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A PROFIT OF 8 6576 ONLY, BALANCE ADDITION OF 88,000/- WAS MADE TO TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. CON SEQUENTLY, TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT 10,68,580/ AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF 86,580/. ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSEDU/S147 READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT O N 20 APRIL 2016. 6. ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. AO , ASSES SEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) HISSAR, DISMISSED IT AS PER ORDER ON 25/3/2019. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH TH AT ORDER HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. COMING TO THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT DATED 9 /11/2016 IS INVALID. AS PER ASSESSEE,IT WAS ISSUED ON THE SPOT ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE . AS PER HIM, LD. P A G E | 7 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR AO SHOULD HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND BEFORE ISSUE, SO WH ICH CANNOT BE APPLIED IF NOTICES ARE ISSUED ON THE SPOT ON THE SA ME DAY. THEREFORE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 28/12/ 2016 U/S147 READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS WITH OUT JURISDICTION AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY DECISION OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH IN SATISH KUMAR VERSUS ITO, WARD 2 (3) , FARI DABAD 2019 (3) TMI 436 - ITAT DELHI DATED:- 14-1-2019 - IN ITA NUMBER 3586/DEL/2018 DAT ED 14/1/2019 (SMC).THEREIN SMC TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSID ERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN 323 ITR 249 QUASHED ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN THAT ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT ON 12 AUGUS T 2015 AND NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 12 AUGUST 2015. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION INSHRI AJAY SHARMA , GHAZIABAD VERSUS THE DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) , UTTARPRADESH2019 (3) TMI 571 DATED:- 5-3-2019 - HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE SEVER AL OTHER DECISION OF THE SMC BENCHES I.E. MICRON ENTERPRI SES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4) , GHAZIABAD - 2018 (5) TMI 1018 - ITAT DELHI AND SH RI HARSH BHATIA C/O. M/S. RRA TAXINDIA VERSUS THE I.T.O WARD -50 (3) NEW DELHI - 2017 (10) TMI 1313 - ITAT DELHI. TH EREFORE, HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASH ED AS SUCH. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OBJE CTED TO THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RAISED ANY OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB AND SUBMITTED THAT WHER E THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE T HE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE PRE CLUDED CHALLENGING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. AO IN ANY PROCEEDINGS OR P A G E | 8 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ENQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED IT BEFORE THE LD. AO, THUS, IT IS MERELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION A ND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CA SE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE U/S148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 9/1/2016VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER 709091116002527 WITH ITO WARD 2, HISSAR. LD. AO NOTED AT PARAGRAPH NUM BER 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AFTER RECEIVING RETURN, NOTIC E U/S143 (2)/ 142 (1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 9/11 /2016 ITSELF FOR FIXING HEARING ON 15/11/2016 AND SERVED UPON TH E ASSESSEES COUNSEL ON THE SPOT. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. AO HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 43 (2) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED U/S139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 CAN BE ISSUED BY AO, IF, CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSU RE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED THE EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SERVES ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM ON A DATE TO BE SPE CIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE AO OR TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE AS SESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN. THEREFORE, MOMENT RE TURN OF INCOME IS FILED THE LD. AO IS REQUIRED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT ASSESSEE A. HAS UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR B. HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR C. HAS NOT UNDER PAID THE TAX THEN ONLY HE SHALL SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE . THEREBY IT IMPLIES THAT THE AO HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND BEFORE IS SUING NOTICE P A G E | 9 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT. THUS, NOW THE ISSUE ARISES T HAT HOW MUCH TIME LD. AO CAN TAKE TO APPLY HIS MIND ON THE RETUR N OF INCOME. OBVIOUSLY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY STANDARD PARAMETER F OR THE SAME. IF THE ISSUE IS STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT MAY TAKE SECONDS, AND IF THE ISSUE IS COMPLICATED, LAW ITSELF HAS GIVEN HIM TIME TO IS SUE SUCH NOTICES UP TO 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE AY IN WHICH RETU RN OF INCOME IS FILED. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MINIMUM STATUTORY TIME THAT MUST ELAPSE BEFORE A NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION CAN BE IS SUED AFTER ASSESSEE FILES RETURN OF INCOME, HAS BEEN FIXED BY LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, WHEN EVEN THE LAWMAKER DID NOT THOUGHT IT PROPER TO PUT ANY MINIMUM TIME LIMIT FOR ASSESSING OFFICER T O ISSUE NOTICE AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE, IF A MINIMUM THRESHOLD IS PUT, THEN IT WILL AMOUNT TO CURTAILING THE POWERS OF ASSESSING OFFICE R. OBVIOUSLY, HE CANNOT ISSUE THE NOTICE BEFORE THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUCH WAS THE CASE BEFORE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WHICH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS QUASHED AND WHICH I S HEAVILY RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. AR WE WILL COME TO DISCUS S THAT DECISION IN A SHORT WHILE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO PU T ANY MINIMUM TIME LIMIT FOR AO TO MAKE HIM WAIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AFTER ASSESSEE FILES HIS RETURN OF INCOME. I F WE DO SO, WE ARE AFRAID, WE ARE REWRITING THE LAW. HOWEVER, IF THE A SSESSING OFFICE IS ARBITRARY IN ISSUING NOTICE OR HAS EXCEEDED HIS J URISDICTION, THEN ONLY, WE ARE EMPOWERED AND MAY COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE, OTHERWISE NOT. WE HAVE OUR REASON FOR THA T, WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS LATER. 10. PROVISION OF SECTION 143(2) PROVIDES THAT [(2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTI ON 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 142, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF, CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO P A G E | 10 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE IN COME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER-PA ID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO A TTEND THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN: PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHAL L BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED .] 11. THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 143 (2), HE MUST APPLY HIS MIND WHETHER HE CONSIDERSIT NEC ESSARY OR EXPEDIENT. POSSIBLY, HE CAN DO SO THE MOMENT, HE G OES THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME, OR POSSIBLY, HE MAY EXHAUST T HE FULL TIME ALLOWED TO HIM, I.E. SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE AY IN WHICH RETURN IS FILED. SECTION 143 (2) CONTEMPLATES MAK ING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUE O F NOTICE. THE TWO IMPORTANT WORDS USED ARE NECESSARY AND EXPED IENT. THE WORD EXPEDIENT IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND GENERALLY DEALS WITH THE WIDER RANGE OF SITUATIONS THAN NECESSARY. CIRCU MSTANCES WARRANTING EXPEDIENCE IS INCAPABLE OF PUTTING IN TO A COMPASS BOX; GENERALLY IT WOULD COVER WIDE RANGE OF CRITERI A FOR SELECTION OF CASES SUCH AS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE WORD NECESS ARY IS LIMITED IN ITS SPHERE COMPARED TO EXPEDIENT AND I S APPLICABLE GENERALLY IN THE CASES WHERE REASSESSMENT OR ANY OT HER MANDATORILY WARRANTED ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE. 12. NOW THE MOOT QUESTION THAT ARISES WHETHER AO COULD HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE AND CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE COUNSEL OF THE P A G E | 11 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME TIME AND ON TH E SPOT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE, DESPITE HIM HAVING NO INFORMATI ON ABOUT THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT REASONS RECORDED BY HIM U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 13. THERE MAY BE MANY SITUATIONS, WHICH CAN BE VISUALIZ ED. SOME OF THEM ILLUSTRATIVELY ARELIKE AS FOLLOWS. 14. FIRST SITUATION WHICH CAN BE VISUALIZED AS WAS BEFO RE THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SOCIETY FORWARD INTERBANK FINANCIAL TELECOMM UNICATION REPORTED IN (2010) (323 ITR 249) (DEL) WHERE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND ON THE SAME DATE THE NOTICE WA S SERVED UPON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BY HA ND WHEN HE CAME TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE NOT ICE WAS BEARING A DATE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING THE RETUR N OF INCOME. THUS, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED PRIOR T O FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY ASSESSEE. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HELD T HAT :- 5. THE ONLY ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RE TURN OF INCOME ON 27.03.2000 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED ON 31.03.2000. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/REVENUE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAVE RETURNED FINDINGS OF FACT T HAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2000, WHEREAS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27.03.2000 AND WAS SERVED ON THE SAME DATE ON THE ASSESSEE. . 8. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX P A G E | 12 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR (APPEALS) AND THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAV E RETURNED A CONCURRENT AND CLEAR FINDING OF FACT THA T THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.20 00 AND SINCE THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 27.03.2000, THE NOTIC E WAS NOT A VALID ONE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETE D ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTICE WAS ALSO INVALID AND WAS CONSEQ UENTLY SET ASIDE. IT IS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE NOTICE, IN FACT, WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2000 AND NOT ON 23.03.2000, THE DATE, WHICH IS RECORDED ON THE NOTICE ITSELF. NO SUCH CON TENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAID CONTENTION CANNOT BE RAISED BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME. 9. HOWEVER, EVEN IF WE ACCEPT WHAT THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE APPELLANT / REVENUE SUBMITS, IT DOES NOT MAKE T HE CASE ANY BETTER FOR HIM. IN PARA 3.4 OF THE MEMORANDUM O F APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE RETURN WA S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2000 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE BY HAND WHEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CAME AND FILED RETURN. HOWEVER, THE DATE O F THE NOTICE WAS MISTAKENLY MENTIONED AS 23.03.2000. 10. ASSUMING THE AFORESAID TO BE TRUE, THE NOTICE W AS SERVED ON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIMULTANEOUSLY ON HIS FILING THE RETURN WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE NOTICE WAS READY EVEN PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN. . 1 1. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) MAKE IT CLEAR T HAT THE NOTICE CAN ONLY BE SERVED AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS EXAMINED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS WHAT PARA 3.4 INDICATES IS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME T O FILE THE P A G E | 13 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR RETURN, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BY HAND. THUS, EVEN IF WE TAKE THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT FACE VALUE, I T WOULD AMOUNT TO GROSS VIOLATION OF THE SCHEME OF SECTION 143 (2) OF THE SAID ACT . 15. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES,HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NOTICE CAN ONLY BE SERVED AFTER THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN FAC TS QUASHED ORDER ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICE WAS DATED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN BY ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANYWHERE IN T HE ORDER THAT THERE CAN BE A RULE THAT AO CANNOT ISSUE NOTICE U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON THE DAY ON WHICH HE RECEIVES RETURN OF INCOM E. IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO READ IN THAT DECISION WHICH IS NOT HELD . FURTHER, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT BUT A FRESH ASSESSMENT. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE CONCURRENT LOWER AUTHO RITIES HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 27MARCH 2000, THE NOTICE U/S143 (2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISS UED ON 23 RD OF MARCH 2000, I.E. PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN OF INCOM E. THEREFORE, IT WAS MUCH OF A CASE WHERE THE NOTICE WAS PURPORTEDLY ISSUED AND KEPT READY PRIOR TO EVEN FILING OF THE RETURN OF IN COME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT SITUATION, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS INVALID.HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE BEFORE US, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN R EOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THIS DECISION IS OF NO HELP TO ASSESSEE. 16. SECONDLY,THE CASE MAY BE THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE F ILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE BE EN ISSUED NOTICE U/S148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THERE IS DEFINITE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO T HE AO THAT P A G E | 14 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN HIS CORRECT INCOME. THEN, WH EN THE ASSESSEE RESPONDS TO THE NOTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT B YFILING SAMERETURN WHICH WAS ORIGINAL FILED OR REQUEST BY A LETTER TO CONSIDER ORIGINAL RETURN FILED AS A RETURN IN RESPO NSE TO THAT NOTICE, PERHAPS, IN THAT SITUATION, IT MAY NOT TAKE MUCH OF THE TIME FOR THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE A. AO HAS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND B. ASSESSEE ALSO WANTS TO SUBSTITUTE THAT ORIGINAL RET URN ALSO IN RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S148 THEREFORE, THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION IN THE RETURN IS ALREADY ON RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER . SUCH A SITUATION, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AO MAY ON LOOKING AT THE NOTICE ITSELF FIND IT NECESSARY TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THUS IMPUTI NG WAITING TIME TO THE AO FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT IS PERHAPS NOT JUSTIFIED. BECAUSE, IN SUCH CASES THE AO MIGHT HAVE VERIFIED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF N OTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT, IF HE DOES NOT FIND SUCH INFORMATION IN TH E RETURN, THEN ONLY HE ISSUES NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. OTHERWISE , WHY HE WOULD ISSUE A NOTICE IF THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN IT. ALL THE DECISIONS, CITED BEFORE US BY ASSESSEE, FALL INTO THE SECOND SITUATION NARRATED BY US. THE DECISIONS CITE D BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARE ALL OF SMC WHEREAS TH E DIVISION BENCH (SAME COMBINATION) HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN SURANA ENTERPRISES V ITO ( ITA NO 5414/DEL/2018) DATED 26/5/2020 AS UNDER:- 21. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OVER ARGUMENT THAT ON THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF 148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AO HAS ISSUED THE DELHI COOP ERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VS. ITO, ITA NO. 2894/D EL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) PAGE | 15 NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE P A G E | 15 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ACT ON THE SAME DATE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIN D. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 143 (2), THE AO ON RECEIPT OF RETURN, IF CONSIDERS IT NECESS ARY OR EXPEDIENT, TO ENSURE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTA TED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED THE EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HA S NOT UNDER PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER ASKS ASSESSEE TO A TTEND BEFORE HIM. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO WAS ALREADY HAVING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS CONTAINE D IN ORIGINAL RETURN AS WELL AS THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT WAS MERELY REITERATION OF SAME FACTS AS CONTAINED IN TH AT RETURN. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE,U/S148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY WRITTEN A LETTER THAT ORIGINAL RETURN MAY BE CONSID ERED AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S148 OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS ALREADY AVAILABL E WITH THE REVENUE/ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE EVIDENCES W ERE SO CLINCHING IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF THE ENTRY OPE RATOR, STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER OF THE INVOICE AND THE IN QUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CLEARLY PROV ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. FURTH ER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IF THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED B Y THE AO ON THE SAME DATE ON WHICH RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FI LED/OR THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED IS INTIMATED TO BE RETURN I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT, THE AO CANNOT APPLY HIS M IND IMMEDIATELY. ACCORDING TO US, HE CAN. THERE IS NO M INIMUM THRESHOLD OR GAP OF TIME PRESCRIBED U/S143 (2) OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, PUTTING AN ARTIFICIAL TIME BREAK BETWEEN THE TIME OF INTIMATION OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE TO BE ISSUED BY THE AO WOULD BE UNREASONABLY PUTTING A BU RDEN ON P A G E | 16 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DISMISS THIS ARGUM ENT OF THE AR. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN IN SUCH A SITUATION AS MENTIONED BY US ABOVE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S143 ( 2) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. AO ON THE SAME DATE OF THE DATE OF FILING O F THE RETURN CAN BE FOUND FAULT WITH. 17. HOWEVER, ANOTHER SITUATION THAT ARISES, THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT AT ALL FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. NOTICE U/S148 IN THAT C ASE IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATIO N EXCEPT THE AIR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IF IN SUCH CASE S, WHEN ASSESSEE FILES RETURN, ISSUING NOTICE U/S143 (2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SPOT PERHAPS SHOWS THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. NATUR ALLY AO WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AIR INFORMATION OR ANY OTHER T ANGIBLE MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSUE D, COMPARE IT WITH THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEN HE CAN SAY THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSE SSEE. IT MAY HAPPEN THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE FILED THE RETURN INCORPORA TING THE INCOME COVERED IN 148 NOTICES. THUS, THE ISSUE IS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE AO MAY NEED SOME TIME FOR VERIFICATION. 18. THE PRESENT CASE IS ONE-STEP HIGHER THAN THIRD SITU ATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH THE COMPETITION OF INCOME, THE TRA DING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE BALANCE SHEET OF TH E ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE AO WAS MERELY HAVING INFORMATI ON ABOUT CASH DEPOSIT OF 1297900 IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H INDUSIND BANK LIMITED. AO DID NOT HAVE ANY INFORMAT ION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS ASSESSEE IS DOING, WHETHER THE BANK P A G E | 17 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR ACCOUNT IN WHICH ALLEGED IS DEPOSITED, WHETHER THAT APPEARS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER THE LEVEL OF INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIES THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSI TED ETC. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT, THE AO DIDNOT THO UGHT IT NECESSARY BUT ISSUED THE NOTICE IN A MECHANICAL M ANNER.IF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS READ CAREFULLY, IT SHOWS THAT N OT ONLY HE ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S143 (2)/142 (1) OF THE ACT BUT ALSO ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE . IN ADDITION, THAT TOO ALONG WITH THE NOTICES WAS SERVED ON THE SPOT WHEN HE WENT TO FILE THE R ETURN TO THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE . IN SUCH A SITUATION THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THIS CLEARLY SAYS THAT BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE, AO HAS TO EXAMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOT ONLY THAT THE AO ISSUED THE NOTIC E ON THE SPOT TO THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO ISSUED QUESTIO NNAIRE ALONG WITH THAT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO SU STAIN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R. THUS, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 28/12/2016. THUS, WE ALLOW THE ADDITIONA L GROUND NUMBER [1] RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 19. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON JU RISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE MERITS AS WELL AS OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THEREFORE THEY ARE DISM ISSED AS NOT ADJUDICATE. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/05/2020 . SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATE: 27/05/2020 . P A G E | 18 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR *AK KEOT* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT; 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI P A G E | 19 5161/DEL/2019 MR. HEMANT MITTAL V ITO WARD -2, HISS AR DATE OF DICTATION 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER