M/s. Growth Techno Projects Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 525/DEL/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Growth Techno Projects Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to several assessment years. The primary issues revolved around the recognition of income from the sale of units, the inclusion of bank liability in the cost of construction, and the deletion of alleged undisclosed income related to unaccounted cash receipts. The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation and both parties agreed that certain adjustments needed to be made as per the remand report from the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and re-assessment based on the agreed adjustments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121814 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized
• Section: 131; 143(3); 133A; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.521 TO 526/DEL/2016 [Assessment Years:1997-98 TO 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2003-04] M/s Growth Techno Projects Ltd. 7A, Doctor Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), New Delhi PAN-AAACG2638P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Abhishek Mathur, Adv. Revenue by Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, These are appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 12.11.2015 pertaining to Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 20002-03 and 2003-04. 2. Since, the issues are common and connected, therefore, we are referring to the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.521/Del/2016, which reads as under:- 1. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case by taking into consideration the finding of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and misinterpreting the same and has erroneously upheld the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer on all grounds without considering and giving reference to the written submission filed by the 2 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 appellant before him in detail in the appellate order passed by him. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has decided the appeal of the appellant on merely suspicious and surmises and decided the appeal of the appellant in an arbitrary manner which is bad in law. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case in rejecting the method of determining the cost of construction per sq. feet which has been determined by the appellant on the basis of Audited Statement of Accounts of the company for the year ended 31.3.2003 and accepted and approved in the assessment of the appellant company in assessment year 2003-04 u/sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order has not been challenged by the Revenue Department in the proceeding u/sec.263 of the said Act and has thus attained finality. Assessment year 2003-04 was the year in which the housing project was fully completed by the appellant company. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to apply his mind to the finding contained in the appellate order of the Tribunal which has relied on the assessment order for the year 2003-04 and specifically directed that "we therefore, direct the A. O. to ascertain the actual amount of total bank liability and allow deduction proportionately against each flat and then determine net profit. It is submitted that the above directions was in line with the assessment order for the year 2003-04 which has been, as already explained, duly accepted by the department. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not giving specific finding on the taxability of sales of Units No.236,237,238,239,242,243,246,247,248,251,249 as to when and in which assessment year the same is taxable. This was an issue on which the remand report was specifically called for by the Hon'ble CIT (A) on 12.06.2015 after considering the seized documents and other papers. The remand report was sent by the concerned Assessing officer and the same was placed before the appellant. The appellant filed the reply of the said remand report but inadvertently it has escaped from the kind attention of the learned CIT(A) in considering the same while finalizing the appellate order of the appellant which is bad in law. 3 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of alleged receipt of cash at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. ft. of the area sold to each of the unit holder. 6. That the learned CIT (A) has made the above arbitrary additions without summoning the unit holders u/sec. 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify as to whether they had made any payment @ Rs. 1,000/-per sq feet in cash for the units purchased by each of them which is over and above the agreement value mentioned in the agreement to sell. Without verifying these facts and without any evidence, thus the addition of notional income is not only bad in law but against the principle of natural justice. 7. That the appellant in regard to the above had filed an affidavit which was also ignored by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and had not given any cognizance thereto which is also bad in law. 8. That the sustaining of notional addition of income in each of the assessment years in appeal by the learned CIT (A) is merely based on suspicion and surmises which is bad in law. 9. That the appellant reserves their right to furnish additional grounds of appeal / alter any grounds of appeal, if required before the hearing of the appeal. It is, therefore, kindly prayed that unwarranted additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.” 3. This is second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the authorities below, reads as under:- 3. In this case, original assessments in the A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were completed u/s 254/147/143(3) on 28.03.2005 at the income of Rs.2,33,15,950/-, 1,49,70,434/- & Rs.4,36,31,222/- as against the returned income of Rs.78,880/-, Rs.NIL and loss of Rs.3,93,097/- respectively. In the A.Ys. 2000-01 and 4 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 2002-03, the assessments were completed u/s 154/143(3) of the Act at Rs.3,83,35,205/- and Rs.29,74,371/- against returned income of (-) Rs.2,34,214/- and NIL. Similarly, assessment u/s 143(3) was completed for A.Y. 2003-04 at Rs.195,51,560/- against the returned income at Rs.NIL. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estates and sale & purchase of flats. The assessee has followed the project compilation method for computing the income for the business of real estates. A survey operation us 133A of the Act was carried out at the registered office of assessee on 07.03.2003 and on the basis of material impounded during survey and having regard to the complexity of the case, special audit u/s 142(2)(a) of the Act was directed which was carried out by M/s G. P. Aggarwal & Company and report was submitted on 19.09.2003. During the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee, A took a view that the assessee had given physical possession of the flats/units to the unit holders during the year under consideration as the documents contained possession letters duly signed by assessee and acknowledged by unit holders. On the other hand, the assessee had shown the amounts received from unit holders as advance and did not book the amounts received as income under the year consideration. However, A concluded that the ingredients of transfer of immovable property were fulfilled in the case of assessee in as much as possession given to unit holders was complete without any condition and the unit holders had taken possession of the property after making full payment in respect of units. The contention of the assessee that there was pending litigation between assessee and bank with whom the properties were mortgaged and as per out of court settlement, it was decided that the unit holders had to make direct payment to the bank, was rejected by AO on the ground that the payments in respect of these units were fully made by unit holders and physical possession was given to them by assessee. The claim of assessee that since the project was not complete, the income was not liable to tax and the same could be offered only in the year of completion of the project, was also not accepted by AO on the ground that assessee company was not a contractor, it was developing its own project for the purpose of sale; the construction of the project was completed substantially and possession was given to unit holders; documentary evidence found during survey also confirmed that the assessee had effected sale of units after receiving 5 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 full configuration and mere fact that some of the units were not complete or that there was dispute with the developers and the bank did not detract from the fact that the sale of unit was effected and income accrued to the assessee as the accrual of income on the units sold could not wait for the whole project to be completed and sold. 3.1 Regarding the cost of project, calculation was made by assessee as well as AO on the basis of documents found during survey and details available with the assessee. The assessee worked out the cost of entire completed project at Rs. 15,25,83,661/- and the entire area of the project 109108 sq. feet. Accordingly, the cost per sq. ft was worked out at Rs.1398/-by the assessee. On the other hand, AO noticed that the assessee had included bank liability of Rs.3,98,79,040/- towards the project to which he excluded in absence of any details and worked out the cost per sq. ft at Rs.1021/- only as against Rs.1398/- worked out by assessee. Regarding receipts from the units, it was held by AO that in A.Y. 1997-98, assessee received total consideration against units sold at Rs.1,88,26,344/- which included the receipt on account of bank liability of Rs.13,69,710/- worked out at the rate of Rs.178/- per sq. ft. This rate was worked out by AO on the basis that the assessee had received the total sum of Rs.1,94,55,486/- from subscribers on account of bank liability and total area of the project was 109108 sq. ft, therefore, the rate per sq. ft comes at Rs.178/- only. Thus, after reducing the bank liability from the receipts, net receipts was worked out at Rs.174,55,634/-against Rs.194,55,486/- shown by assessee. After taking into account these figures of cost of project and net receipts, profit from sale of units for the A. Y. 1997-98 was worked out at Rs.96,00,039/- which was added to the total income of assessee by the AO. Similarly, for A.Y. 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2002-03, net profit at Rs.47,02,218/-, Rs.165,94,719/-, Rs.12,32,796/- respectively was worked out and included in the total income of assessee. 3.2 It was further observed by AO on the basis of evidence and material found during the survey proceedings that assessee had received certain amounts in cash over and above the amount mentioned in the sale agreements during all the years. On the basis of these documents, AO estimated the rate of 71000/- per sq. ft and applied it on the areas sold 6 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 by assessee during the different years. For A.Y. 1997-98, AO worked out the figure at Rs.76,95,000/- as unaccounted cash on the basis that 7695 sq. ft area was sold by assessee and AO applied Rs.1,000/- per sq. ft on this area and computed the amount received as unaccounted cash. Similarly, other additions on account of traveling expenses under Rule 6D and depreciation were also made in different years. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment orders of AO from A.Y. 1997-98 to 2002-03, assessee filed appeal and Ld. CIT (A) upheld the additions made by AO. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the main issues and granted relief on the disallowance of hotel expenses in Delhi u/s 6D in AY 1997-98. In AY 1998-99 & 1999-2000, relief of disallowance of 5% on account of telephone and vehicle expenses was granted while in AY 2000-01, relief of Rs.46,796/- on account of hotel expenses was given. In assessment for the year 2002-03, the assessee got relief of disallowance of depreciation subject to verification. 5. Against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) in these years, assessee approached ITAT and Hon'ble ITAT, vide their order dated 30.01.2009, analyzed the facts of the case and submissions of appellant and restored back certain issues to the file of AO. In their order, Hon'ble ITAT discussed the facts of assessee in detail for A.Y. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03 and considering the A.Y. 2000-01 as base year, as it was firstly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), observed/directed as under: "22. We have considered rival contention of both the parties and have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the various documents and papers placed in the paper book. 23. Originally a property development agreement was entered into between the owner of the land and B.D. Developers that saleable space in the constructed building was to be shared in the ratio of 50-50 between the owner of the land and the developers. The original developer had taken loan from the bank of India against the said project. Bank of India initiated legal proceedings for recovery of the amount 7 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 of loan advanced by the bank to the original developer. In the meantime, in September, 1990, the assessee took over development rights from B.D. Developers and became the developer of the same units. In the agreement entered into with B.D. Developers from time to time, it was also agreed that the assessee developer would also pay the bank liability. The construction was then started by the assessee. The liability to the bank was also belated due to delay in the payment. The settlement with the Bank of India was arrived at on 21.05.1996 whereby sum of Rs.3.75 crores plus legal expenses were agreed to be payable to the bank of India by 30.09.1996, in failure of which the settlement would be treated to be null and void. On this settlement entered into with the Bank of India, the Special Leave Petition filed by one Acharya Arun Dev was withdrawn. Till the full payment was made, the Bank refused to remove their charge on the property. Assessee then entered into an agreement with the allottees or buyers that they would pay the escalation amount provided the possession of the flats are handed over to them. As per terms of this agreement, the buyers made direct payment to the Bank of India "Account owner of the land". This amount directly paid to by the buyers to the Bank of India was a part of the consideration mentioned in the agreement. In this process, the total sum of Rs, 3,29,24,752/- between 1996 and 31.03.2000 was collected and the payment was directly made to the bank of India and the same is reflected in the books of account of the assessee as advance payment towards the liability of the bank and is also reflected as increased sale price in the agreement to sale entered into with various unit buyers. It is also submitted that the assessee had earlier also paid a sum of Rs. 15,52,074 to the Bank of India which was duly reflected in the books of account. The total liability of the bank was determined at Rs. 7,39,83,365/- out of this the amount of Rs. 3.29 crore and Rs. 15.52 lakh was adjusted leaving a balance sum of Rs. 3.95 crore payable to the bank. The assessee then again entered into an agreement with the bank on 22.03.2001 whereby assessee agreed to pay sum of 8 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 the Rs.80 lakh, against which the assessee paid the sum of Rs.69.50 lakhs to the bank which is stated to be reflected in the books of account. The assessee again paid a sum of Rs.61,28,409/- to the bank, and no due certificate was obtained on 03.02.2003. The assessee, therefore, submitted that the total amount of Rs. 4,14,26,826/- was paid by the assessee to the bank, and thus the same is to be treated as part of the purchase consideration being borne by the assessee. The assessee stated that this amount was ultimately adjusted in the books towards the cost in the financial year 2002-03. It is, thus, seen by us that dispute with the bank was only with regard to the repayment of the loan payable by the assessee. The property was placed as a security for the payment. The non payment of dues to the bank has nothing to do with the question whether the project was completed for the purpose of determining income therefrom to be assessed under the Income-tax Act. 24. The first question arises in these appeals is whether the assessee is bound to account for the profits on the sale of mats in respect of which possession Was handed over by the assessee to the buyer, and the amount of consideration was realized and was also paid directly to the bank. In this case, the ultimate registration of the sale document in favour of the buyer is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the construction of a particular flat is completed and the possession was actually handed over by the assessee to the buyer. Thee could of case where some incidental activities may not have been completed or there may be come further obligation undertaken in the agreement for sale of flat which were to be discharged or performed by the developer. The developer's profit is referable to that part of the development of the project which has been completed. In the present case, it is not necessary that all the flats should be first sold and then the project can be said to have been completed. Each and every every flat or unit is to be treated as an independent project, and the profit on that part which has been completed by handing over the possession to the buyer cannot be postponed beyond the date on which the 9 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 possession was handed over by the developer to the buyer. If any constructed flat is sold and the possession thereof is handed over to the buyer and any obligation may still be discharged by the developer, the profit may very well have to be reported. In the present case, the assessee's contention that the entire project of constructing number of flats is to be treated as a single project and the profit would arise to the assessee only after all the flats are sold is not found to be justified on the facts of the present case. In the business of Development and Construction of property, the question may arise as whether there will be profit for each year when there are no receipts. In case, there is no receipts or sale of a particular flat is not completed, there will be then be no profits. The outlay can be carried forward at cost with the result that the value of the work in progress valued at cost will be equal to the outlay. But when there are receipts or sale of some flat is completed, proportionate profits are bound to be presumed and it may not be correct to avoid accounting profits in that year with reference to such receipts or possession of the flat having been handed over to the buyer. In that case, the whole project may be disjunctive and may be capable of being dissected where, the developer is able to treat the project as discharged in part; handing over part of the constructed portion will then have to be treated as independent project and profit on that part cannot be postponed beyond that date. Where the developer goes on handing over constructed flats on each occasion, when it is handed over, there is a completed sale whether there has been registration of the document or not: Proportionate part the profits in respect of the constructed flats, in respect of which a possession was handed over, will have to be accounted-Whole project may not be completed or there may be some further obligation undertaken in the agreement for sale of flat. In such a case, a reasonable provision can be made for future obligation. The Id. CIT(A) has rightly observed that if we were to agree to the contention of the assessee, it might given rise to a possible mischief where the assessee would never conclude his project by leaving 10 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 one flat incomplete indefinitely or by keeping certain liability outstanding indefinitely. The assessee's contention tha Isewerage and water connection were yet to be obtained and the electricity connection connection had yet to be sanctioned cannot he a basis to say that the project was not completed when it has been categorically established on the basis of documents and papers found during the course of survey that the actual physical possession of the flats were handed over by the assessee to the buyers. If this was the case of the assessee that certain liability were yet to be discharged by the assessee the assessee would have make reasonable provision, which can be taken Into account while determining proportionate cost relating to the flats which has been sold and in respect of which the profit has been booked in the relevant year as so hold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Calcutta Company reported in (1959) 37 IT 1 (SC), but because for that reason; the profit of the flats, in respect of which the possession was handed over by the assessee to the buyer, cannot be postponed when the assessee was maintaining the books of account on mercantile basis, following project completion method of accounting. 25. In the light of the discussion made above, we, therefore, upheld the order of authorities below in holding that the profit from the flats in respect of which possession were handed over by the assessee on the basis of the documents and papers found during the course of survey; is to be assessed in the respective years in which the possession was handed over by the assessee to the buyer irrespective of the fact whether the certain liability or dues were still payable by the assessee to the bank or any other person in respect of any liability undertaken by the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the order of authorities below in including the profit from the respective flats, details thereof is incorporated in the chart given in the body of assessment order of the assessment years under consideration. No contrary material except a verbal submission has been brought by the Id. counsel for the assessee to 11 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 disprove or controvert the findings of the A.O. with regard to the fact that the assessee had handed over the possession of the number of flats to the buyers after laking full consideration of the agreed price as detailed by the A in the list incorporated in the assessment order. 26. Now coming to the question about the working of the net receipts or sale consideration and the expenses relating thereto, we find that the A.O. has worked out the net receipt on the basis of details mentioned in the books of account including the documents and papers found during the course of survey. The AO has taken gross receipts in the assessment year 1997-98 at Rs. 1,88,26,344/- which was also worked out by the assessee. The AO then deducted the sum of Rs. 13,69,710/- on account of the payment directly paid to the bank by the buyer. The AO then taken the net receipts of Rs. 1,74,55,634/-. At the same time, the AO has not allowed the deduction of the payment made to bank as cost as he has already allowed the deduction of the amount paid to bank from the sale receipts. The AO has taken the total payment paid to the bank at Rs.3,98,79,040/- though, the assessee has claimed before us that the total payment made to bank was more than that. However, this issue with regard to the actual amount paid to the bank may be freshly examined and verified by the A0 and necessary deduction is to be allowed from the total receipts of sale of flats to the buyers. It is not in dispute that the assessee's liability towards bank has been incurred in connection to the assessee's business of developing property and, thus, the same is invariably to he considered while determining the net profit. We, therefore, direct the AO to ascertain the actual amount of total bank liability and allow deduction proportionately against each flat and then determine the net profit. The assessee shall submit the working supported by evidences, before the AO, who shall then examine and verify and adjudicate the issue denovo as per law and in the light of the observation made above. With regard to the assessee's claim that the cost of flats is to be determined at the rate of Rs. 12 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 1398/- per sq. ft. as against the rate of Rs. 1021/- adopted by the AO, we find that in the assessment, the AO has worked out the basic cost at Rs. 1398/- per sq. ft., which was determined after taking into account the payment made to bank, but he reduced the same to Rs. 1021/- per sq. ft for the reason that the amount collected by the assessee from the buyer towards the liability paid to the bank has already been reduced from the net receipts from the sale of flats. However, in the assessment year 2003-04, the AO has taken the total cost of construction at Rs. 15,25,83,661/- and taken the total constructed area at Rs. 109108/- per sq. ft., and actual cost of construction was determined at Rs. 1398/- per sq. ft. The AO has taken the total sale consideration of the unit in that year at Rs. 4,73,42,207/-. From the said order for the assessment year 2003-04, it is not clear as to whether the amount paid to bank has been included in the total cost of construction determined at Rs.15,25,83,661/- and as to whether the amount collected by the assessee from the buyer Going towards bank liability is at the same time included in the total sale consideration taken at Rs.4,73,42,207/- In the light of the confusion so arising, we, therefore, restore this matter about the working of the profit after ascertaining the total gross receipts collected by the assessee from the buyer including the bank liability directly paid to the bank, net receipts excluding the amount directly paid to the bank by the buyers though included in the consideration amount mentioned in the agreement, the total cost of construction including the bank liability payable by the assessee to the bank and the net cost of construction after excluding the bank liability directly paid by the buyers to the bank. This exercise shall be freshly done by the A after examining all the evidence and details, and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As already stated above, the assessee shall submit the working of the total receipts as well as the total cost incurred by the assessee including the bank liability payable to the bank to the AO to enable the AO to examine and verify the same with reference to the bank accounts and other papers available on record and then to 13 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 determine the profit from the flats in each year. We order accordingly. Thus, the first issue raised by the assessee is disposed off in the manner as indicated above. 27. The next issue raised by the assessee in all these appeals is with regard to the addition made by the A0 on account of alleged unaccounted and undisclosed cash received by the assessee from the buyer over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the sale agreement. 28. We have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. 29. In the course of argument, the Id. counsel for the assessee pointed out certain materials and the special audit report of the auditor to contend that the A has included the undisclosed receipts in the hands of the assessee wrongly without appreciating all the evidences and materials available on record. For instance, the Id. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the following facts pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98:- (i) That A.O. has included the sum of Rs. 8,32,650/- and Rs. 64,66,530/- as cash receipts received by the assessee against unit No. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 57 though in fact, these units were never constructed and no agreement to sale was executed; (ii) The A.O. has included cash amount of Rs. 10 lakhs over and above Rs.6,19,916/- in respect of unit no. 50 though the special auditor has pointed out that the amount of Rs.6,19,9167-was returned back to the buyer on 16.04.2000; (iii) The A.O. has wrongly included the cash of Rs. 6,43,500/- and cheque of Rs.8,58,000/- against unit no. 244 though the fact of the case was that Rs. 12,87,000/-was received against the unit as per agreement for sale dated 30.06.2001. It was further pointed out that the authorities below has not considered the report of the special auditor and the submission of the assessee in that regard; 14 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 (iv) The A.O. has went wrong in working out a figure of Rs. 76,95,000/- as unaccounted cash that might have been received by the assessee at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. ft. in respect of Rs, 7,695/- per sq. ft. area allegedly sold by the assessee during that year. In this connection, it was submitted that this working of the A.O. is purely based on imagination and surmises. 30. Similarly, in other assessment years, the Id. counsel for the assessee pointed out certain inconsistency and anomalies in the A. O. 's order. 31. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that this issue whether assessee had received any amount over and above the amount mentioned in the sale agreement during all the years under consideration need fresh adjudication after examining and verifying the details at the end of the A so that actual state of affairs are brought on record, and a correct assessment of the assessee's income can be made, and that too after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as after considering the assessee's submissions or contentions that may be submitted before the AO. We order accordingly." However, assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 was completed u/s 143(3) by AO and appeal has been filed by appellant against the order in normal course. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the matter was taken up by the AO and certain additions were made, appeals against which have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that in this case, the ld. CIT(A) has obtained certain remand report and the AO in the remand report has suggested certain adjustments which have not been carried 15 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 out. Hence, he pleaded that the matter should be remitted to the file of the AO and the assessee will make effort to get the adjustments reported by the AO in the remand report given effect. 7. Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that he will have no objection, if the matter remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). At this point, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made following submissions:- “Under these circumstances, it is humbly requested that the aforesaid matters be set aside to the file of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax appeals only with respect to the three issues as mentioned in below:- 1. Recognition of income from sale of units based on possession by giving effect to the remand reports. 2. Inclusion of Bank liability in cost of construction as per specific directions of ITAT orders dated 30/01/2009. 3. Deletion of undisclosed income with regard to alleged unaccounted cash alleged to be taken by the appellant as per the ITAT order 30/01/2009. 8. Upon careful consideration, we note that this is second round of litigation before the ITAT in this case. Both parties have agreed that there are certain adjustments which need to be carried out in all the Assessment Years with regard to the remand report submitted by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). In this view of the matter, as agreed by both parties, we remand the issue raised in this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh in the light of submissions being made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee hereinabove. 16 ITA Nos.521 to 526/Del/2016 9. In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; 22.06.2023. f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ?f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ? Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi