Harinder Kumar Bhatia, HUF, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 534/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3786 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 HARINDER KUMAR BHATIA, HUF, 855, WELCOME HOME, GT ROAD, SEELAMPUR, DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD - 34(3), NEW DELHI. PAN : AABHH9569Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PIYUSH KAUSHIK, SHRI V. K. SABHARWAL, SHRI R.B. GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 01-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-02-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 OF CIT(A)- 19, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,91,350/-. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH IS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IS THE BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,52,550/- THROUGH 2 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 BANK ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SHRI HARINDER KUMAR BHATIA (HUF) HAS SHOWN GIFT OF RS.10,51,000/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 143(2), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE EVIDEN CE OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA, R/O E-72, AMAR COLONY, LAJPAT NAGA R-IV, NEW DELHI WHO IS AN INCOME-TAX PAYEE AND ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER ITO, WARD 32(4), NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE SAID DONOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ISSUED A LETTER TO T HE ITO, WARD 32(4) FOR VERIFICATION OF THE GIFT. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS RE CEIVED FROM THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SU MMON U/S 131 DATED 03.12.2007 TO BOTH THE DONOR AS WELL AS THE DONEE F OR APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM ON 12.12.2007. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED ON THAT DATE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND SINCE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, THE ASSES SING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING THE GIFT RECEIVED AT RS.10,51, 000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION S O MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.3524/DEL/2009 ORDER DATED 22.07.2011 RESTORE D THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 6. ON AN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE AD DITION. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS WHICH WERE PLACED ON RECORD. HE FURTHER STA TED THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE VIDE PAY ORDER NO.1080403 DATED 9.10.2003 DRAWN ON STATE BAN K OF INDORE, ROHINI, NEW DELHI, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEE'S BANK A CCOUNT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT THE DONOR WAS AN INCOME-TAX ASS ESSEE WITH PAN NO.AOBPS-0381- M BEING ASSESSED WITH ITO, WARD 32(4), NEW DELHI. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE AS TO WHAT WAS THE OCCASION FOR MAKING A GIFT OF RS.10,51,000/- BY SHRI SUDHIR SACH DEVA TO THE ASSESSEE HUF. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THE RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA AND THE ASSESSEE HUF, WHICH PROMPTED THE DONOR TO G IVE A GIFT OF RS.10,51,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE HUF. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT G IVEN A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT HAS BEEN DULY SHOWN BY THE DONO R IN HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF MONEY. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTE D POSITION THAT DONOR HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR HE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE THIS FACT INTO ACCOUNT. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT, STATEMENT OF DONOR SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA AND HIS EXAMINATION B Y THE AO IS VITAL SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE AND CORRECT AFFAIRS OF THE TRANS ACTION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND HAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS OF THE DONOR BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE THEREFORE, FIND IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR, SOURCE OF MONEY FOR PAY ORDER, AND TO ASCERTAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA, AND THE OCCASION & PURPOS E FOR WHICH THE GIFT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA. THE ASS ESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE AND FURNISH ANY FURTHER EVIDENCES OR MATERI ALS BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE WHICH, IF SO FILED, SHALL BE CONSIDERED TH E AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(2) DATED 30.12.2011 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 11. 01.2012. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS :- 1. COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND COPY OF ITR I NCLUDING BALANCE SHEET FOR F.Y. 2003-04 OF SH. SUDHIR SACHDEVA I.E. DONOR. 2. ESTABLISH THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND TH E ASSESSEE. 3. PURPOSE AND OCCASION OF THE GIFT. 4 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 4. PHOTOCOPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. SUDHIR SACHDEV A FOR F.Y. 2003-04. 6. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY THE BANK PASSBO OK OF SHRI HARINDER KUMAR BHATIA (HUF) AND THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA AND FAILED TO FURNISH THE REMAINING DETAILS. IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY THE DONOR OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE INCOME TAX DETAILS OF SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA AND SHRI HARIND ER KUMAR BHATIA WERE ALREADY SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTACT THE DONOR TO COLLECT THE INCOME TAX DETAILS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE MEANTIME ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO SHRI SUDHIR S ACHDEVA FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2012 AT HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS I.E. E-72, AMAR COLONY, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI. BUT THE SAME WAS RETUR NED BACK UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK LEFT. THE INS PECTOR OF THE WARD WAS DEPUTED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES ABOUT SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA WHO REPORTED THAT SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA WAS NOT RESIDING AT E-72, AMAR COLONY, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI AND THE NEIGHBORS EXPRES SED THEIR INABILITY TO GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR DESPITE GIVING OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,51,000/- TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 7. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER OBTAINING A REMA ND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE A SSESSEE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO, HE OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY PAY ORDER AND NOT THROUGH CHE QUE, THEREFORE, THE DIRECT NEXUS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA W ITH THAT GIFT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. DESPITE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUN AL, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DONOR FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA SHOWS THA T HE IS A MAN OF LITTLE MEAN WITH OPENING BALANCE OF RS.4843/- ONLY. FURTHER, M ONEY WAS RECEIVED AND IMMEDIATELY PAID AGAIN CHALLENGED THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION. SINCE THE ONUS CAST ON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCHARGED THE LD. CIT(A) RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND S :- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 20.11.2012 WHICH UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 21.10.2015, WAS PERVERSE TO THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BECAUSE OF NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS ALREADY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITH REG ARD TO THE RECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS.10,51,000/-. 2. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS FURTHER NOT LEGAL AS TENABLE UNDER THE LAW, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE RECEIPT OF GIFT, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AND PLACED UPON RECORDS ALL THE COGENT EVIDENCES ALONGWITH THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT CONF IRMING THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHEREFROM THE DONOR HAS GIVEN TH E GIFT TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS FURTHER UNCONSTITUTIONA L AS AGAINST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE FINDING ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLA NT IN SUPPORT OF THE RECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS.10,51,000/-. 6 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED IS FURTHER NOT LEGAL AS TENABLE BECAUSE ALL THE INFORMATION / DOCU MENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE APPELLANT WERE PASSED OVER TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE DONOR AND THEREAFTER NO ADVERSE FINDING IF ANY HAS EVER BEEN RECEIVED FROM HIM. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS FURTHER NOT LEGAL UNDER THE LAW, BECAUSE OF DOUBTING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR BECAUSE OF HIS NON-AP PEARANCE AS HE HAS ALREADY LEFT THE PREMISES LONG TIME BACK, THOUGH HIS CREDITWORTH INESS WAS ALREADY PROVED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED ANY PLACED UPON RECORDS ALONGWITH THE COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT. 6. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE FURTHER NOR CORRECT UNDER THE LAW AND TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE MATERIA L INFORMATION AS REQUESTED. 7. THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS FURTHER BAD IN LAW, BEC AUSE OF NOT CONFRONTING THE REPORT OF WARD INSPECTOR RECEIVED AND PLACED UPON R ECORDS IN RESPECT TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE DONOR AS CONTAINED AT P AGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PRIOR TO TAKE ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE THEREOF. 8. THAT NO PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IF ANY HAS SINCE BEEN AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO MAKE ILLEGAL AND IMP UGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.10,51,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE ASSAILS HIS RIGHTS T O AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME, EVEN DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING OF THIS INSTANT APPEAL. PRAYER:- 1. THAT THE ILLEGAL AND IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE OF RS. 10,51,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE DELETED / QUASHED. 2. ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT MAY PLEAS E BE DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS PRAYED ACCORDINGLY. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALTH OUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN DETAILS. HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO OLD AGE OF THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT CONTACT THE DONOR. HOWEVER, NOW HE IS IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THE SAID DONOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANT IATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 7 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY. 10. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND WHILE SUPPORTING THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO DIS CHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM BY PRODUCING THE DONOR FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN TERMS OF THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 AS PER THE DIRECTION OF T HE TRIBUNAL. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS IS AL WAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 BY PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INST ANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO THE SAME DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD AND TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN ADMI TTED FACT THAT WHEN THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY MAKING FURTHER EN QUIRIES TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DO NOR, SOURCE OF MONEY FOR THE PAY ORDER AND TO ASCERTAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONOR AND THE OCCASION AND PURPOSE OF GIFT, I FIND, THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL ALL THE 8 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ONLY PARTIALLY FULFILLED. EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO DESPITE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS T HE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO HIS OLD AGE, HE COULD NOT CONTACT THE DONOR AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND OBTAIN NECESSARY DETAILS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY HE WILL PRODUCE THE DONOR ALONG WITH RELEVANT DETAILS SINCE HE IS NOW IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE HIM. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATIS FACTION REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE OTHER DIRECTION AS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EAR LIER ORDER. TO AVOID ANY DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS HE REBY DIRECTED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THIS ORDER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT HIN ONE MONTH WITH REQUEST TO ISSUE STATUTORY NOTICES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL TRY HIS BEST TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM T HE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FILED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT UNDER ANY PRET EXT AND COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EARLY COMPLETION OF THE ASSES SMENT. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO 9 ITA NO.534/DEL/2016 PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- (R. K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07-02-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI