Sh. Neeraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6221/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2877 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 69; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN, L-46, THIRD FLOOR, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD- 47(2), NEW DELHI. PAN : AEXPJ4491D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. R. MISHRA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 12-02-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 26.09.2016 OF THE CIT(A)- 28, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.6220/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2005-06) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.07.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,22,028/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY RECORD ING THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- 2 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 IN THIS CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT U/S 143(2) MADE FOR AY 2009- 10, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN AGREEMENT TO SELL MADE ON 05- 01-2005 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY TRANSACTION FROM SHR I RAJ KUMAR JAIN, SON OF LATE SHRI RAM VILAS JAIN, RESIDENT OF 79, KHANDEK BAZAR, MEER UT, UP. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE MANAKPUR PARAGNA, U JJANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BADAU, UP. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS MADE AT RS. 51,81,920/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 10,00, 000/- (TEN LAC) IN CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE (SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN, PURCHASER) TO THE SELLER UPON SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT AS MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO. 1 ON PAGE 2. T HE SAID AGREEMENT MADE ON 05- 01-2005. IT APPEARS THAT CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- WA S GIVEN TO THE SELLER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 (05-01-2005) PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO S HRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN (SELLER) WHO RECEIVED ADVANCE CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON 05-01-2 005 AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL FROM THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OF THE ABO VE MENTIONED PROPERTY. IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DEATH CERTI FICATE OF SELLER SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN WHO EXPIRED ON 01-06-2009. THEREFORE, GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. HENCE TO PROVE THE ONUS OF THE GENUINENES S OF TRANSACTION LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF ADVANCE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 10,00,000/- AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 05-01-2005. THE SAME IS RE QUIRED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH PAID TO SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN (SELLER). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE P AID CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON 05- 01-2005, SOURCE OF WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED OF THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSITION TO GIVE ADVANCE CASH OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON THE RESPECTIVE DATE. HOWEVER, SELLER OF PROPERTY SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN WAS SUMMONED U/S 131 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED DU E TO THE DEATH ON 01.06.2009. HENCE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- ON 05.01.2005 RE MAINED UNEXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I THEREFORE, HAVE REASONS TO BELIE VE THAT AN INCOME OF RS.10,00,000/- ON 05.01.2005 FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 PERTAINING TO AY 2005-06 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS FIT FOR ISSUIN G NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. 3. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED U/S 139 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.10,00,000/- INVESTED BY HIM ON 05.01.2005 IN CAS H AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE MANAKPUR PARAGNA, UJJANI TEHSIL, DISTT. BADAU, UP, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000 /- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE 3 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, IN ABS ENCE OF ANY PROPER EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF CAS H IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO N OF RS.6,38,608/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE CA SE, FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. THE BRIEF FACT O F THE CASE IS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT PROPERTY TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT I N FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 (A.Y. 2005-06). THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED AGREEMENT TO PU RCHASE A PROPERTY WITH SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN, AT VILLAGE, MANAKPUR PARAGNA, UJJAIN TE HSIL FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.51,81,920/-. OUT OF TOTAL AGREED PURCHASE PRICE (RS.5181920/-) (RS.10,00,000/- WAS PAID IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 IN CASH BY THE A SSESSEE AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL. ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2012. 4.2 DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING EVEN AFTER BEING GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR T HE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE IN CASH ON 05.01.2005 ON ACCOUN T OF PART PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS FILED. ACCO RDINGLY AS PER DETAIL REASON MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SAME WAS TREA TED AS INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING SUBMI SSION MADE BEFORE THE A.O. WAS REPEATED. IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. AR THAT SOME FA MILY DIVISION TOOK PLACE IN THE APPELLANT SPOUSE FAMILY AND THE APPELLANT GOT HIS S HARE ON SUCH DIVISION OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE TAKE SUCH MONEY FROM HIS SPOUS E AND MADE INVESTMENT IN ABOVE MENTION PROPERTY. HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WAS FILED, HENCE THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDER ING THE ABOVE AND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE C ASH PAYMENT MADE AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00, 000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. 5. SO FAR AS DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, HE ALLOWED A CREDIT OF RS.38,608/- AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS.6,00,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE CA SE, FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. DURING THE COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING EVEN AFTER BEING GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY NO EX PLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS FURNISHED. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,50,000/- RECEIV ED FROM HER MOTHER IN LAW, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON B EHALF OF OUR EMPLOYER COMPANY AMOUNT TO RS.167608/- IN CASH. THE APPELLANT HAS A LSO FILED A CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD FROM HER MOTHER IN LAW AND THE COMPANY REGAR DING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IN CASH. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE CASH GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN ABSENCE OF THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. IT IS NOTED SMT. MALTI JAIN IS HAVING NOMINAL YEARLY INCOME OF ONLY RS.1,09,022 /- WHICH IS LESS THAN 25% OF THE AMOUNT STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT. FURTH ER THE SOURCE OF THE CASH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. FURTHER, EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTE D THAT THE CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYER AS REIMBURSEMENT, THEN APP ARENTLY THE SAME HAD TO BE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING CASH WITHDRAWAL IS APPARENT FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE THE SAME HAS TO BE INCURRE D EITHER BY ADVANCE RECEIVED OR FROM THE EARLIER REIMBURSEMENT. TAKING ALL THE FAC TS INTO CONSIDERATION, THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER TAK ING ALL THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, PAST SAVING, EARLIER WITHDRAWAL, CER EMONIAL GIFTS ETC, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEP OSIT IS RESTRICTED TO RS.6,00,000/-. THE APPELLANT WILL GET RELIEF OF RS .38,608/- ACCORDINGLY. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [ 'CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE A CT') IS BEYOND JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO. 1.1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHOUT THERE BEIN G 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WAS ILLEGA L AND BAD IN LAW. 1.2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE A CT HAVING BEING INITIATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCRUTINIZING/ INVESTIGATING THE DETAILS OF THE APPELLANT, IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 1.3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUISITE SANCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT WAS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPH OLDING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTIONS 147/144 OF THE ACT AT AN I NCOME OF RS.17,57,881 AS AGAINST INCOME OF RS.1,22,028 RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPH OLDING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,166 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10(13A) OF THE ACT. 5 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY. 4.1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS MADE OUT OF AMOUNT(S) LE GATED BY THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE APPELLANT. 4.2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN D ISREGARDING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COUR SE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 4.3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICAT ION IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR AS THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN 'BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS'. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING VARIOUS ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DE-HOR S THE GROUNDS/ISSUES ON WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SECTI ON 147/148 OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,00,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6.1. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF A MOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. 6.2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NO T APPRECIATING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICAT ION IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR AS THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN 'BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS'. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR VARY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED AN APPLICATION REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UND ER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME- TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 :- (I) COPY OF WILL DATED 10.10.2003 EXECUTED BY LATE MRS. MALTI JAIN. (II) COPY OF STATEMENT OF NET WORTH OF LATE MRS. MA LTI JAIN AS ON 31.07.2005 AND 06.08.2006. (III) COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE MRS. MALTI JAIN. 6 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 8. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND, THEREFORE, THESE SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN DONE PROPERLY SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE GIVEN DURING THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WERE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED. DESPITE REPEATED REMINDER BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENT ON THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED NOW AND THE OTHER EV IDENCES FILED EARLIER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE PROPERLY CONSIDERED THEN NO ADDI TION CAN BE MADE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RES TORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE CASE MAY BE. 9. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS MENTIONED EAR LIER, DUE TO INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.10, 00,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT IN CASH ON 05.01.2005 AS PER AGREEMENT TO S ELL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, ON ACCOUNT OF INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,38,608/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. I FIND LD. CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF OF RS.38,608/- 7 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 OUT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SUS TAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,00,000/- (I.E. RS.10,00,000/- PLUS RS.6,00,00 0/-). THE REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREA DY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PROCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEING FILED NOW AS PER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND THE EVIDENCE F ILED EARLIER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE PROPERLY CONSIDERED THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED UND ER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND RESTORE THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE TH E ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS E VIDENCES INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOW FILED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.6221/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2006-07) : 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.6220/DEL/2016. I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND AFTER ADMITTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED FOR THAT YEAR HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH 8 ITA NOS.6220 & 6221/DEL/2016 DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS BASI CALLY RELIED ON THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TO TALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 , I RESTORE THE MATTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO A DJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF MY DIRECTION FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- (R. K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16-03-2018. 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