ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Meena Bhagehandka, Kolkata

ITA 5747/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2799 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEFALI SWROOP
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITO, WARD- 22(2), NEW DELHI. VS. MEENA BHAGEHANDKA, 10A, MIDDLE TON ROW, KOLKATA. PAN : AEJPB2719L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 (IN ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 MEENA BHAGEHANDKA, 5, SAGAR APARTMENTS, 6, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD- 22(2), NEW DELHI. PAN : AEJPB2719L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SHEFALI SWROOP, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANTOSH PATHAK, CA SHRI RAKESH TIWARI, CA DATE OF HEARING : 19-03-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJEC TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.10.201 1 OF THE CIT(A)- XXXII, DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 (BY REVENUE) : 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LTD . OF RS.57,20,000/-. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT A SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS /RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.01.2007. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO M2 K GROUP OF CASES. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,930/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF 22000 SHARES OF SHONKH TECHNOLOGI ES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED FROM VIJAY SHREE SHARE BROKING LIMITED AT AN AVERAG E PRICE OF RS.72.25/- PER SHARE AGGREGATING TO RS.15,89,500/- ON 11.08.2000 W HICH IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THEM BY DIFFERENT CHEQUES CLEARED IN THE BA NK ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE TOTAL OF THE SAME COMES TO RS.15,89,500/-. 14000 S HARES OUT OF THE SAID SHARES ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO RICH IE RICH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. AT A PRICE OF RS.315 PER SHARE AMOUNTING TO RS.44,10,0 00/- ON 15.02.2001 AND 8000/- SHARES ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO ASPIRE TRADING PVT. LTD. AT THE RATE OF RS.315 PER SHARE AGGREGATING TO RS.25,20,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE S OF SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 IS SHAM AND BOGUS AND IS MERELY A CHANNEL TO ROUTE THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO BANKING CHANNEL WITHOUT PAYING ANY TAX BY EVOLVING THE METHOD OF GETTING TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ADJUSTING A HEAVY CAPITAL LOSS TO SET OFF THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN. FURTHER, THE TRANSACTIO N OF PURCHASE AND SALE IN SHARES OF SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAVE NOT BEEN DONE THRO UGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND WERE DONE OUTSIDE THE STOCK EXCHANGE I.E. OFF MARKE T TRANSACTION. THERE IS NO SANCTITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE TO THE SELLER AFTER A PERIOD OF ABOUT 7 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE PRICE OF THE SHARES WAS RAN GING BETWEEN RS.71/- TO RS.83/- WHEN THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BUT IT REACH ED TO RS.315/-. FURTHER, WHEN THE ACTUAL PAYMENT WAS MADE THE PRICE OF THE S HARES WAS RS.113/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS REASON S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HEL D THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION IS MERE SHAM AND BOGUS AND DONE IN BACK DATE TO ACCOMM ODATE THE ASSESSEE AND ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS INCLUDING THE COMPANY I.E. SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES ARE PARTY TO THESE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVERY FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RAMESH BH AGCHANDKA AND SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA HAVE ALSO RESORTED TO SIMILAR PRACTICE TO SHOW SIMILAR SALE AND PURCHASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DISBELIEVED THE TRANSACTION BY TREATING THE SAME IS SHAM AND BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE 4 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 ADDITION OF RS.57,20,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND UNEXPLAINED I NCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMILARLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.82,00,000 /- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT BUT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELET ION BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SAME. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF RAMESH BHAGCHANDKA AND SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES INVOLVE D. AS ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS AND ISSUES PERTAINING TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO AND THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR CIT(A), IT IS NOT DESIRABLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS GIV EN BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR CIT(A)-II IN THE CASES OF BOTH RAMESH BHAGCHANDKA (ORDER DATE D 10/02/2010 IN I.T. APPEAL NO.232/08-09) AND SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA (ORDER DA TED 5/2/2010 IN APPEAL NO.198/08-09) FOR A.Y. 2001-02, THIS GROUND IS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE 22000 SHA RES OF SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AS HAS BEEN SETTLED IN CONNEC TED CASES OF SHRI RAMESH BHAGCHANDKA AND SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA FOR THE SAM E A.Y. 2001-02 AND THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS GOT RELIEF ON THIS GROUND, THE RELATED LEGAL GROUND RAI SED IN PART 1(A)(II) OF THE GROUND NO.1 IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON. (DELETED ADDITION OF RS.57,20,000/-) 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED O N THE ORDER OF HIS 5 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF RAMESH BHAGCHANDKA AND S MT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. WE FIND WHEN THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.1972/DEL/2010 & ITA NO.1970/DEL/2010 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAMESH KUMAR BHAGCHANDKA AND ACIT VS. SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHAN DKA RESPECTIVELY, ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT THE L D. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THESE ADDITIONS HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND H AS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT, DO NOT STAND REBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE PROPERLY: 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE ALSO BEEN GONE THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY. THE A.O. HAS VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE ORDER THAT HE IS DEALING WITH THE SAME ISSUE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HIMSELF HAS REPRODUCED THE FINDING OF THE THEN A.O. IN THIS ORDER FROM PAGE NO.2 TO PA GE NO.7. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED IN THIS ORDER ITSELF, SOME PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TH EN CIT(A) FROM PAGE NO.7 TO PAGE NO.8. 2.3.1. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE THEN CIT(A) , IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. MY PREDECES SOR CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DIRECTION AS UNDER:- ...IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION ON A CAREFU L CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OP INION THAT THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APP ELLANT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,37,07,292/- AS DEC LARED BY THE APPELLANT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 1,37,07,292/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS DELETED. 2.3.2. IT IS ALSO ASCERTAINED AND VERIFIED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THIS ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND NO SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE ITAT. THUS, THIS MATTE R HAS REACHED FINALITY. 2.3.3. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THIS ORDER IS PA SSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO IN CRIMINATING/ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN REL ATION TO THESE TRANSACTIONS WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY CIT(A) WAS W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL. I HAVE MYSELF GONE THRO UGH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. FROM PAGES 8 TO 13 WHEREIN THE PRESENT A.O. IS GIVING HI S OWN FINDING. NOWHERE HE HAS REFERRED ANY MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH D UE TO WHICH HE IS REVISITING OR REVIEWING A DECISION WHICH HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL . ACTUALLY HE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE 6 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 AGAIN BASED ON THE SAME FACTS WHICH WERE ALREADY ON RECORD BASED ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE THEN AO A ND HAS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 2.3.4 EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS THERE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISS UE IN DETAIL IN HER CASE VIDE MY ORDER DATED 5/2/2010 IN ITA NO. 198/08-09. FOR READ Y REFERENCE, I AM REPRODUCING HEREWITH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF MY ORDER AS UNDER: - THE QUESTION NOW ARISES AS TO WHETHER WHEN A MATTE R HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL, IN 153C PROCEEDINGS OR FOR IN THAT MATTER IN 153A PROCEEDINGS ALSO, CAN THE A.O. RAISE THE SAME MATTER WITHOUT HAVING FOUND ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL DURING THE SEARCH. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT O F AO THAT THE MOMENT 153A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN AND THEREFORE A.O. HAS FULL RIGHT TO TAKE UP ANY ISSUE WHETHER IT HAS BEEN REACHED FINALITY OR NOT BUT I AM AFRAID, HIS INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE ACCEP TED AS IF IT IS ACCEPTED IT WILL LEAD TO CHAOS AND JUDICIAL INDISCIPLINE. EVEN IN RE OPENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, ONCE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED ON THE SATISFACTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON SOME ISSUE, THOUGH THE A. O . IS FREE TO TAKE UP OTHER ISSUES ALSO BUT HE CANNOT TAKE UP CERTAINLY THOSE I SSUES WHICH HAVE BECOME FINAL BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) OR FOR THAT MATTER, BY ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY. THIS IS THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION BY THE FULL BENCH DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD, [25 6 ITR 1], DELHI (FULL BENCH), FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EICHER LTD. [294 ITR 310 (DELHI)], WHICH HAS BEEN A PPROVED BY THE LATEST ORDER DATED 19/01/2010 OF APEX COURT THAT EVEN IF H E (AO) HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED A PARTICULAR CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AFTER APPLICATION OF HIS MIND ON THAT ISSUE (WHETHER MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OR NOT), UNLESS SOME NEW MATERIAL COMES INTO HIS POSSESSION, HE CANNOT REVIEW HIS OWN DECISION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERIN G WORKS PVT. LTD. [198 ITR 297] HAS ALSO HELD THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO REVIE W OF THE CONCLUDED ITEM UNCONNECTED WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF 153A OR 153C ASSESSMENT, CERTAINLY THE SCOPE IS RATHER LIMITED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL K UMAR BHATIA VS. ACIT, CC 17, NEW DELHI, VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 1/1/2010 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN 153A IF NO MATERIAL IS FOUND IN SEARCH. 5.3.4.IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O. HAS RAISED THE ISSUE BASED ON THE SAME FACTS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF THE AO: NOW, IN ADDITION TO WHAT MY PREDECESSOR SAID IN HI S ORDER, I FURTHER WANT TO BRING SOME MORE VITAL FACTS IN THE LIGHT TO PROVE T HAT THE SAID TRANSACTION IS MERE A BOGUS AND SHAM TRANSACTION AND DONE IN BACK DATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ASSESSEE AND ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS PROCE SS INCLUDING THE COMPANY I.E. SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES ARE PARTY TO THIS BOGUS TRANSAC TION. 5.3.4.1 BUT NOWHERE IN THE ORDER HE HAS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL. RATHER BASED ON THE SAME MATERIALS, HE RAISED THIS ISSUE AGAIN A ND ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FILE SOME CLARIFICATIONS. WHEN APPELLANT WANT TO FU RTHER SUBSTANTIATE HER CASE AND PRODUCES SOME DETAILS THEN HE IS SAYING THAT TH ESE FACTS WERE NOT PLACED EARLIER. BUT THE ACTION OF AO IN RAISING A SETTLED ISSUE AT FIRST STAGE ITSELF CAN NOT BE UPHELD IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND 7 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT ON THE OBSERV ATION OF AO THAT SUCH FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF AO EARLIER. 5.3.5. THUS BASED ON THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE ACTION OF A.O. TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AGAIN AND MAKING THE ADDITION CANNOT BE HELD JUSTIF IED. 5.3.6. AS THE ACTION OF AO OF RAISING THIS SETTLED ISSUE AGAIN IS NOT APPROVED, IT IS NOT DESIRABLE ON MY PART TO GO TO THE MERIT O F THE ISSUE AT THIS STAGE AS THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR CI T(A) AND IT WILL NOT BE OPEN FOR ME TO REVIEW HIS DECISION IN THE SAME WAY AS A.O. WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO RAISE THE ISSUE AND REVIEW THE SAME WH ICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REACHED FINALITY. 2.3.5. AS ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY, THE FACTS AN D THE ISSUE RAISED ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, BASED ON THE DE CISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA BHAGCHANDKA, VIDE ORDER DATED 5/2/2010 IN AP PEAL NO. 198/08-09 FOR A.Y.2001-02, THE ACTION OF A.O. OF RAISING THIS SET TLED ISSUE AGAIN WITHOUT ANY FRESH MATERIAL IS NOT APPROVED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT ALSO. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NOT DESIRABLE ON MY PART TO GO TO THE MERIT OF THE ISSU E AT THIS STAGE AS THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) AND I T WILL NOT BE OPEN FOR ME TO REVIEW HIS DECISION IN THE SAME WAY AS A.O. WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO RAISE THE ISSUE AND REVIEW THE SAME WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REACHED FINA LITY. 2.3.6. THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLA NT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES AS HAS BEEN SETTL ED EARLIER AND THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68. 9. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH STOOD UNREBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, WE OBSERVE THA T THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ORIGINAL ORDERS U/S. 143(3) IN THESE C ASES STOOD PASSED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN ON THE ABOVE ISSUE STOOD ALREADY DELET ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER, IN THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF ACCEPTS THAT THERE I S NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NO INDIRECT EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THE CLAND ESTINE INCOME EARNED BY DUBIOUS MEANS IS POINTED OUT BEFORE US. THEREFORE, FOR WANT OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO M AKE THE SAME ADDITIONS AGAIN IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CA SE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, WHICH STOOD DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) IN APPEALS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S. 143(3) ON THE SAME ISSUE. FOR THIS, WE STAND FORTIF IED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 380 ITR 573 AND SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER, WHEREIN WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE STAND DISMISSED. 10. NO OTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.5747/DEL/2011 C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 7. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RELA TED PARTIES, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE RELATED PARTIES AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. C.O. NO.249/DEL/2013 (BY ASSESSEE) : 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE LD. D R HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22-03-2018. 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