DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6015/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4216 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C D AN DE
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYEN SETHI MS GARGI SETHI
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6008/DEL/2014 AY: 19 88-89 ITA NO. 6010/DEL/2014 TO ITA NO. 6015/DEL/2014 AYS: 1990-91, 1991-92, 92-93,93-94, 94-95, 95-96 DCIT, VS ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUC TURE LTD., CIRCLE 1(1), 115, ANSA L BHAWAN, 16, K. G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 NEW DELHI-110001 (PAN: AAACA0006D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C. DANDE, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATYEN SETHI, MS GARGI SETHI, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING: 31.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.09.2017 ORDER PER BENCH ALL THESE SEVEN APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXXI, NE W DELHI DATED 30.06.2014 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96. 1.1 ALL THE APPEALS HAVE IDENTICAL ISSUES AND THERE FORE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROU GH THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND PROMOTER WHO HAD SEVERAL SIMULTANEOUS RESIDENTIAL/C OMMERCIAL PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN AT DIFFERENT PLACES. AS ON ANY DATE THE ASSESSEE HAD FEW UNSOLD FLATS/COMMERCIAL SPACE/OPEN AREA ETC. IN DIFFERENT PROJECTS. THERE WERE ALSO CERTAIN FLAT S/COMMERCIAL SPACES, OPEN AREA IN RESPECT OF WHICH OCCUPATION CE RTIFICATE WAS YET TO BE OBTAINED EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECTS HAD BEE N COMPLETED. THIS WAS SO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE PR OJECTS AS BEING COMPLETED ON COMPLETION OF 90% OF THE PROJECT AND HAD OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT UNSOLD PROPERTIES ALSO QUALIFIED F OR INCLUSION IN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON NOTIONAL BASIS ALTHOU GH THE SAME WAS PART OF STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 TO 1995 -96 BY THE AO BY BRINGING TO TAX ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF PROPERTIES AS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y. ON APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT WA S THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT ALV OF FLATS/SPACES LYING UNSOLD CANNOT B E ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ALTERNATE GROUND O F THE ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 3 ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE RATES ADOPTED TO ASSESS THE A LV OF THE RESPECTIVE FLATS/SPACES WAS ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE OR THE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING LET OUT. THE LD. CITA) AS WELL AS THE ITAT DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE LEGAL PLEA THAT THE NOTIONAL ALV OF FLATS/SPACES LYING UNSOLD COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE LD. CIT(A) HA D GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THIS LEGAL P LEA, THE ALTERNATE GROUNDS WERE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. HOWEVER, ON 31. 10.2012, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS ANSAL HOUSIN G FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 354 ITR 180, REVERSED THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT DELETING THE ADDITION BASED ON THE ABOVE L EGAL SUBMISSIONS. THE AO VIDE ORDERS DATED 7.5.13 AND 2 7.5.13 MADE ADDITIONS OF IDENTICAL AMOUNTS AS WERE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINAN CE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED APP EALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 7.5. 2013 AND 27.5.13 AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ALTERNATE GROU NDS HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON IN THE EARLIER ROUND, TO THE EXTENT OF ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 4 GROUNDS REMAINING UNDISPOSED, THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE WERE PENDING. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL ALV ON STOCK IN TRADE IN THE FIRST ROUND, HAD ONLY DECIDED THE LEGAL GROUND ON THE SAID ISSUE AND HAD NOT CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO GIVE HIS FINDINGS ON THE GROUND RELATING TO QUANTUM OF ALV AND ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ALV OF PROPERTY WAS ASSESSABLE AT ALL FOR THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR BEING NOT READY FOR OCCUPATION. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ED THAT FOR WANT OF DECISION BY THE CIT(A) ON CERTAIN GROUNDS R AISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PUT TO UNNECES SARY HARDSHIP. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) ADJUDICATED T HE ISSUE PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE QUANTUM OF RELIEF A LLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED IN PARA 7.6.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NOW, THE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROACHED THE IT AT AND HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE SEVEN YEARS. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE SEVEN YEARS AND ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 5 4. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS AGITATI NG BROADLY THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF CAR PARKING SPACES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CAR PARK ING SPACE IN ANSAL BHAVAN WAS NOT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE A SSESSEE AND IT OCCUPIED ONLY A PART OF THE BUILDING. IT WAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE OTHER GROUND AGITATED BY THE DEPARTMENT PE RTAINED TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF BASEMENT AREA IN THE AKASHDEEP BUILDING BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SHOWN A SPACE UNDER ST OCK IN TRADE. LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OTHER POINT OF CO NTENTION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF DILKHUSH BAG H INDUSTRIAL AREA WHICH WAS DELETED IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SHOWN THE SPACE UNDER STOCK IN TRADE. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO AGITATING TH E DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF U NSOLD SPACES IN AMBADEEP BUILDING FOR PERIODS PRIOR TO THE RECEI PT OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE P ROPERTY WAS NOT ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 6 RELEVANT WHILE CONSIDERING THE CHARGEABILITY OF NOT IONAL INCOME U/S 23(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR REASONING, THE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONTESTING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF UNSOLD SPACES IN PALAM VYAPAR KENDRA, UNSOLD SPACES IN 38, NEHRU PLACE, UNSOLD SPACES IN JYOTI SHIKHAR BUILDING, AND UNSOLD SPACES IN ANTRIKSH BHAWAN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONTESTING DELETION OF ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ALV ON UNSOLD SPACES IN 6, AURANGZEB ROAD PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA D ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE P ROPERTY WAS NOT RELEVANT WHILE CONSIDERING THE CHARGEABILITY OF NOT IONAL VALUE U/S 23(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4.1 LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS F URTHER CONTESTING DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIO NAL ALV IN RESPECT OF CAR PARKING SPACES IN SURYA KIRAN BUILDI NG IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THIS SPACE ALSO HAD BEEN SHOWN AS STO CK IN TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR ARGUED THAT ADDITIONS HAD BEE N DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED TO THE ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 7 ASSESSEE WHICH WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE OCCUPATION CER TIFICATE IS NOT A CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE BUILDING CAN BE HABITUATED OR NOT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY STRUCTUR AL RELIABILITY CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A), WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, HAD I GNORED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE , THE ADDITIONS DELETED WERE SO DELETED IN MISAPPRECIATION OF LAW A S WELL AS FACTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSES SEE ITELF HAD SHOWN UNSOLD SPACES AS STOCK IN TRADE AND HAD NOT C APITALISED THE SAME, ALV HAS TO BE ATTRIBUTED AND HAS BEEN RIG HTLY DONE SO BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS DEL ETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE RESTORED. 5. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR READ OUT EXTENSIVELY F ROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELYING HEAVILY ON THE SAME, SUB MITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMININ G THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY FROM THE FACTUAL ANGLE AND THIS FINDING WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ALSO, AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. LD. AR ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON RECORD. LD. AR URGED THAT THE DELETI ONS MADE BY ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 8 THE LD. CIT(A) WERE CORRECT BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL A S IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOUL D BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT HAS, ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 2.10.2012, HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT INCOME TAX WILL BE LEVIABLE ON A NOTIONAL BASIS ON ALV. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND ADJUDICATION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS CONTAINED IN PARA 13 AND 14 OF THE SAID ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUILDING ACTIVITIES. IT ARGUES THAT FLATS ARE HEL D AS PART OF ITS INVENTORY OF STOCK IN TRADE, AND ARE NOT LET OUT. T HE FURTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT UNLIKE IN THE OTHER INSTANCES, WHE RE SUCH BUILDERS LET OUT FLATS, HERE THERE IS NO LETTING OUT AND THAT DEEMED INCOME - WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT U NDER THE ALV METHOD, SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED. THIS COUR T IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ARGUMENT, THOUGH ATTRACTIVE, C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. AS REPEATEDLY HELD, IN EAST INDIA, SULTAN, AND KARANPURA, THE LEVY OF INCOME TAX IN THE CASE OF ONE HOLDING HOUSE PROPERTY IS PREMISED NOT ON WHETHER THE ASSES SEE CARRIES ON BUSINESS, AS LANDLORD, BUT ON THE OWNERS HIP. THE INCIDENCE OF CHARGE IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF OWNER SHIP. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE DECISION IN VIKRAM COTTON INDICATES THAT IN EVERY CASE, THE COURT HAS TO DISCERN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE; IN THIS CASE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSSESS E WAS TO HOLD THE PROPERTIES TILL THEY WERE SOLD. THE CAPACI TY OF BEING AN OWNER WAS NOT DIMINISHED ONE WHIT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, BUILDIN G AND ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 9 SELLING FLATS IN HOUSING ESTATES. THE ARGUMENT THAT INCOME TAX IS LEVIED NOT ON THE ACTUAL RECEIPT (WHICH NEVE R AROSE IN THIS CASE) BUT ON A NOTIONAL BASIS, I.E. ALV AND TH AT IT IS THEREFORE NOT SANCTIONED BY LAW, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS MERITLESS. ALV IS A METHOD TO ARRIVE AT A FIGURE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPOST IS TO BE EFFECTUATED. THE EXIST ENCE OF AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD ITSELF WOULD NOT MEAN THAT LEVY I S IMPERMISSIBLE. PARLIAMENT HAS RESORTED TO SEVERAL O THER PRESUMPTIVE METHODS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF INCOME AND COLLECTION OF TAX. FURTHERMORE, APPLICAT ION OF ALV TO DETERMINE THE TAX IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ACTUA L INCOME IS RECEIVED; IT IS PREMISED ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A R EASONABLE LETTING VALUE, IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE LEASED OU T IN THE MARKETPLACE. IF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WERE TO B E ACCEPTED, THE LEVY OF INCOME TAX ON UNOCCUPIED HOUS ES AND FLATS WOULD BE IMPERMISSIBLE - WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE. 14. AS FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT THE AS SESSEE ITSELF IS OCCUPIER, BECAUSE IT HOLDS THE PROPERT Y TILL IT IS SOLD, IS CONCERNED, THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS SUBMISSION. WHILE THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT OCCUPATION CAN BE SYNONYMOUS WIT H PHYSICAL POSSESSION, IN LAW, WHEN PARLIAMENT INTEND ED A PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY ONE WHO IS CARRYING ON BUSINES S, TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE LEVY OF INCOME TAX WAS THAT SUCH PROPERTY SHOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE INT ENTION OF THE LAWMAKERS, IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THAT OCCUPATION OF ONES OWN PROPERTY, IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, I.E. AN ACTIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY, (I NSTEAD OF MERE PASSIVE POSSESSION) QUALIFIES AS OWN OCCUPATION F OR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THIS CONTENTION IS, THEREFORE, RE JECTED. THUS, THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE RE VENUE, AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. THUS, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TAXABLE ON THE B ASIS OF ALV OF ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 10 THE UNSOLD FLATS ALSO. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED O RDERS SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH ARE SU MMARIZED AS UNDER:- I) WHILE GIVING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF NOTIONAL ALV IN RESPECT OF CAR PARKING SPACE IN ANSAL BHAVAN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS N OTED THAT ONLY THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED OFFICE WAS SITUATED ON TH E FIRST FLOOR OF ANSAL BHAVAN BUT WAS ALSO OCCUPYING LARGE SPACE IN OTHER FLOORS OF THE BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. HE W ENT ON TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT CAR PARKING SPACE WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOUL D NOT BE SUBJECTED TO NOTIONAL ALV. II) RELIEF IN RESPECT OF AKASHDEEP BUILDING WAS G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF ASSTT. VALUATION OFFICER-II, NEW DELHI WHEREIN THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD CONFIRMED T HAT THE BASEMENT IN THE SAID BUILDING WAS BEING USED AS A C OMMON AREA. ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 11 III) ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DILKHUSH BAGH INDUSRT RIAL AREA WAS ALSO DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUE STION WAS IN AN OPEN SPACE AS CAPABLE OF BEING USED BY ANY NEW O R INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE USE. LD. CIT(A) BASED HI S FINDING ON THE REPORT OF THE ASSTT. VALUATION OFFICER IN THIS CASE ALSO. IV) THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF AMBADEEP BUILDING, PALAM VYAPAR KENDRA, 38 NEHRU PL ACE, JYOTI SHIKHAR, 6 AURANGZEB ROAD, SUSHANT VYAPAR KENDRA, R EVOLVING RESTAURANT AND ANTRIKSH BHAVAN ON THE GROUND THAT O CCUPATION CERTIFICATE HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AS DISCUSSED ELABORATELY IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (S UPRA) IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE BASED ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 12 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 7.5.20 13 AND 27.5.2013 FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE AO ALSO HAS NOT EX AMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL BUT HAS SIMPLY RECOMPUTED THE ASSES SEES INCOME IN TERMS OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/ S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINING THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASIN G CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WILL ALLOW DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS OF THE DEP ARTMENT STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 GS ITA NO.6008, 6010 TO 6015/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1988-89, 1990-91 TO 1995-96 13 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR