Sh. Anil Swarup, Meerut V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5928/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6340 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 234B; 207; 22; 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI , ' # $ , & ' BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ( / ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SH. ALOK SWARUP, C/O-M/S MALIK & CO.(ADV.) 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT CITY, UTTAR PRADESH ...... ....... /APPELLANT PAN-AWOPS9949J VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR . / RESPONDENT ( / ITA NO.5928/DEL/2016 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SH. ANIL SWARUP, C/O-M/S MALIK & CO.(ADV.) 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT CITY, UTTAR PRADESH ...... ....... /APPELLANT PAN-AWOPS9948K VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY: SH. SANKALP MALIK, ADV. SH. SANJAY MALIK, ADV. / RESPONDENT BY: MS. RAKHI VIMAL, DR ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 2 ) / DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.09.2020 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND 147/143(3) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BOTH APPEALS RELATING TO CONNECTED ASSESSEES WER E HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. IN BOTH THE APPEALS ONE COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN RA ISED, I.E. AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SECOND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF C ASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT MAY BE POINTED OU T THAT THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ANIL SWARUP IN ITA NO.5928/DEL/2016 HAS BEE N FILED AFTER DELAY OF TWO DAYS WHICH BEING MINOR IS CONDONED AND WE PROCEED T O DECIDE THE APPEALS. ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 5. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE I NDIVIDUAL HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME FROM SALARY, INCO ME FROM PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 3 CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SHRI ANIL SW ARUP HAD SOLD ON 09.03.2010 AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING KHASRA NO. 361/1, 363M & 364M IN RAKHBA VILLAGE, YUSUFPUR ANDER HUDUD. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS.38,92,000 /-. THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 AFTER INDEXATION WAS CLAIMED AT RS .29,41,530/-; COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.5,69,000/- AND THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS DECLARED AT RS.3,81,470/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONE THIRD SHA RE IN THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH SHRI ANIL SWARUP AND M/S V.K. SINGH (HUF). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE CIRCLE RA TE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RS.1,16,74,725/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN AT RS.38,92,000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIO N WAS UNDER DISPUTE FOR A LONG TIME AND DOCUMENTS REGARDING LITIGATION WERE F ILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED FROM THE PROPERTY DOCUMENTS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF TWO PER SONS I.E. SHRI ALOK SWARUP AND SHRI ANIL SWARUP; BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAM E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES REGARD ING COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.5,69,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ANCESTRAL AND IT WAS MUTAT ED IN THE ASSESSEES AND HIS BROTHERS NAME IN REVENUE RECORD, THOUGH THE PR OPERTY BELONGS TO THREE PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF T HE SALE DEED NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY TWO OWNERS I.E. SHRI ALOK SWAR UP AND SHRI ANIL SWARUP S/O LATE VINOD KUNWAR SINGH AND CONCLUDED THAT THE TWO WERE CO-OWNERS AND ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 4 M/S. V.K. SINGH (HUF) BEING 1/3 RD CO-OWNER WAS NOT ACCEPTED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED VALUATION OF THE PR OPERTY TO VALUATION OFFICER IN LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT; BUT SINCE VALUATION REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATTER WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. AS THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON COST OF IMPROVEMENT, THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWED. THE NET CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.87,33,1 95/- WAS DISTRIBUTED AMONGST TWO CO-OWNERS AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPOR T AND IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REJOINDER ALSO. THE DVOS REPORT WAS ALSO RECEIVED AND IN THE VALUATION REPORT, HE HAD MADE ADJUSTMENT OF 50% ON ACCOUNT OF DISTRESS SALES AND 7.5% OF EACH ON ACCOUNT OF SHAPE AND SIZE. THE CIT(A) RE QUISITIONED THE VALUATION OFFICER, MERRUT, TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF SUCH ADJUS TMENTS MADE. THE CIT(A) COMPARED THE ASSESSED AND DECLARED VALUE ON THE DAT E OF VALUATION AT PAGE-13 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION FROM THE P ARTIES. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 5 8. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 30.03.2013 AND THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DV O IS DATED 18.04.2013. SINCE, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON LATER DATE, CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF ON THIS ACCOUNT. HE REFERRED TO THE CHART AT PAGE-13 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DECLARED VALUE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSED VALUE BY THE DVO IS ABOUT 4.92%. HE STRESS ED THAT WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS ASSESSED LESS THAN 10% THEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ADOPTED. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON SERIES OF THE DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE COST O F IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLA IM WAS ONLY WITH REGARD TO 1/3 RD OF RS.5,96,000/-. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID CO ST OF IMPROVEMENTS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF M/S V.K. SINGH (HUF). THE NEXT ASPECT WHICH WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID ASSET WAS OWNED BY THREE CO-OWNERS I.E. SHRI ALOK SWARUP, SHRI ANIL SWARUP AND M/S V.K. SINGH (HUF). FIRST OF ALL, HE POINTED OUT THAT IN T HE HANDS OF THE M/S V.K. SINGH (HUF), 1/3 RD SHARE WAS DECLARED AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED; IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR ALSO, SAME TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ACC EPTED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE COPY OF SALE DEED WHICH IS PLACED AT P AGE 254 TO 289 OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AT PAGES 207 TO 235 FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME NARRATION WAS THERE IN TH E TWO SALE DEEDS AND JOINT CO-OWNERSHIP OF THREE PERSONS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5 LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM C APITAL GAINS, THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 6 9. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE LAND BEING OWNED BY THREE ENTITIES HAS TO BE PROVED BY THE DOC UMENTS. THE SALE DEED TALKS OF TWO PERSONS, THOUGH IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THREE HANDS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERU SED THE RECORDS. THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE FOR WHICH GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 3 TO 5 HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSED AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SALE VALUE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, TH E VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ARE TO BE TAKEN AS SALE CONS IDERATION. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SALE VALUE DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED WAS AT RS.38,92,000/-, WHEREAS AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE VALUE WAS RS.1.16 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WHO IN- TURN HAS VALUED BOTH THE PIECES OF LAND AT RS.40,86,000/-. THE CIT(A) HAS AD OPTED THE SAID VALUE ASSESSED BY THE DVO AND HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-C OMPUTE THE INCOME IN HIS HANDS. WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VALUE ASSESSED BY THE DVO IS 4.74% I.E. MARGINAL DI FFERENCE WHICH IS LESS THAN 10% OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE DECLARED AND VALUE ESTIMATED. SINCE IT IS CASE OF ESTIMATION OF VALUE BY THE DVO, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE MARGINAL DIFFERENCE NEEDS TO BE IGNORED. WE PLACE RELIANCE O N THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 7 HONEST GROUP OF HOTELS VS ACIT (2000) 177 CTR 232 A ND RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS DCIT IN ITA NO.1547/PUNE/2007. ACCORDINGLY, WE D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE SALE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE ASPECT OF EXTENT OF OWNERSH IP OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT IS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY W HICH WAS OWNED BY THREE CO- OWNERS I.E. SHRI ALOK SWARUP, SHRI ANIL SWARUP, BOT H SONS OF LATE V. K. SINGH AND M/S V.K. SINGH (HUF). THE AO ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED NOTED THAT THE SAME WAS EXECUTED BY TWO CO-OWNERS I.E. SHRI AL OK SWARUP AND SHRI ANIL SWARUP AND CONSEQUENTLY WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 50% IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF EACH ASSESSEE. IN TH IS REGARD, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE THIRD CO-OWNER IS V.K. SINGH(HUF) AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE V.K. SINGH(HUF) HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND 1/3 RD INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN ITS HANDS. THE SA ME INCOME NOW CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF BALANCE OF TWO CO-OWNERS. ANOTHER POINT ALSO TO BE NOTED IS THAT IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, SIMILAR TRANS ACTION OF SALE OF SIMILAR PIECE OF LAND JOINTLY OWNED BY THREE CO-OWNERS WAS DECLAR ED I.E. 1/3 RD SHARE EACH AND SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN EACH OF THE HANDS. OUR AT TENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SALE DEED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. BOTH THE SALE DEED HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY TWO CO-OWN ERS AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN BIFURCATED AMONGST THREE PER SONS. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 8 DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT 1/3 RD NET CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BALANCE 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHRI ANIL SWARUP. 13. NOW COMING TO THE LAST LINKED ISSUE I.E. COST O F IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED AT RS.5,69,000/-(100%). THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DISAL LOWED AS NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PRIN CIPLE OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET IN CASE RS.1,00,000/- EACH IS ALLOWED AS COST OF IMPRO VEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 3 AND 4 AR E ALLOWED. 14. NOW COMING TO THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,06,088/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN HDFC BANK AND ADDITION OF RS.3,13,097/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED DEPOSITS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA. 15. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE SAVING ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK IN WHICH CASH WA S DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CA SH WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES CON TENTION WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND ADDITION OF RS.25,06,088/- WA S MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SUM OF RS. 3,13,097/- WAS DEPOSITED BY CASH/CHEQUES DURING THE YEAR. THIS BA NK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. HENCE, THE SAME WER E TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 9 THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD TH E ADDITION AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AND RENTAL INCOME AND ALSO OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN. THIS WAS EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF CAS H IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN HDFC BANK. HE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADD ITION, CASH DEPOSIT WAS RS.19,65,500/-, CHEQUE DEPOSITS WERE RS.5,40,349/- AND INTEREST WAS RS.239/- . WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS IN STATE BANK OF INDI A, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE ACCOUN T OF ASJ DEVELOPERS, WHERE HE WAS PARTNER AND PART OF IT WAS DEPOSITED I N THE ACCOUNT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE C ASH DEPOSITS AND ALSO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO STRICTLY EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY DEPOSITS IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS I.E. HDFC BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, AS BOTH THESE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DECLARED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET- ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIR ECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSITS OR BY CHEQUE IN THE AFORESAID ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALL OW REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORD INGLY. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 10 17. IN THE CASE OF ANIL SWARUP, THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 18. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEE DING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, TO 5 IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDI CATED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ALOK SWARUP. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. SINCE, WE HAV E DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IS ACADEMIC AND DISMISSED. 18. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE A CT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) & ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT / ) DATED : 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2020 SHEKHAR, *)+),'#-.)/.#0 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. 12) / THE APPELLANT 2. ,312) / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) 4# 5 )6 / THE CIT(A) ITA NO. 5928/DEL/2016 ITA NO.2919/DEL/2015 11 4. 7)) 4#) / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. ) .89),'#' ): )) : ) / DR, ITAT, DELHI 9;<)=))0 GUARD FILE. ) * / BY ORDER , 3.#),'# // TRUE COPY // > ?@'A , )) ): ) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI