DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Jainco Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6379/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3526 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT GOYAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6379 /DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2012-13) DCIT CIRCLE-13(1) C. R. BUILDING NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS JAINCO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 8, NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, VIKAS MARG NEW DELHI AABCJ6893J (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJKUMAR & SH. SUMIT GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA , AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 OF THE CIT(A)-5, DELHI RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.22,71,150/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271AAA IS THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH MARCH, 2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,12,72,940/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS DATE OF HEARING 11.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.02.2018 2 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. AGGARW AL ASSOCIATES AND JAINCO GROUP OF CASES AND THEIR RELATIVES ON 19.10.2011. T HIS GROUP IS CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITIES OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND RELAT ED SERVICES. THE INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. JAINCO DEVELOP ERS PVT. LTD. WAS PASSED ON TO THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH SATISFA CTION RECORDED ON 21.02.2014 BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD. THE MATERIA L RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AND SATIS FACTION IN CONCURRENCE TO THE EARLIER SATISFACTION RECORDED BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD WAS ALSO RECORDED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS AND OTHER ASSETS WERE FOUND / SEIZED. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PARTY IN R ELATION TO THE ASSESSEE I.E., M/S JAINCO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AS LISTED BELOW WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PA RTY FOR NECESSARY ACTION AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT: A) SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 21.02.2014. B) PHOTOCOPY OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS (216 PAGES) C) APPRAISAL REPORT OF M/S AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES & JAINC O GROUP (PAGES-6(1 TO 99)) D) PART-A, CHAPTER-XI / DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS TAKEN OF EXTRACTS FROM SEIZED DOCUMENTS (PAGES - 300 TO 302). E) PART-A CHAPTER -XII - DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTI ES (PAGES 303 TO 305). 4. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153C OF T HE I.T ACT. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES, ATT ENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.10 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPAN CY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM ITS PREMISES. THE AS SESSEE COMPANY HAS DECLARED THE AMOUNTS SURRENDERED AS MISCELLANEOUS I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD 3 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE R ETURNED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS. 2, 12,72,940/-. 5. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S 271AAA OF THE I.T ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 2 71AAA IS NOT LEVIABLE SINCE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SAID SECTION DO NOT SATISFY I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ADMITTED T HE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME VOLUNTARILY AND SURRENDERED A SU M OF RS.2.10 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM ITS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTAN TIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING OF SUCH INCOME BY EXPLAINING EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND HAS PAID THE TAX DUE THEREON ALONG WIT H INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE AL SO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. 6. HOWEVER, THE A.O REJECTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.22,71,150/- OF THE I.T. ACT U/ S 271AAA OF THE I.T ACT. WHILE DOING SO, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED AND ALSO FAILED TO SU BSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. FURTHER, SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS NOT RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OR OTHERWISE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. IF THE S EARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASS ESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED SUCH INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MALA-FIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEHIND IT CANNOT BE DENIED IN THIS CASE. 7. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE IMPUGNED 4 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY ORDERS. IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER THE A.O HAS MENTIONED AT PAGE 2 THEREIN THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CAR RIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES AND JAINCO GROUP AND ON RECEIPT OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 21.02.2014, PHOTOCOPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND APPRAISAL REPORT, HE ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 153C FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 TO 2011-2012. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED YE AR 2012-13 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AS IT WAS THE SEARCH YEAR. THE SURRENDER OF RS. 2.10 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT'S PREMISES WAS ACCEPTED A S PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS APPEARS TO BE A CONTRADICTORY STATEMEN T BY THE A.O. AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O. BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED OFFICER, AFTER RECORDING SATIS FACTION THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY, COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT COMPANY'S PREMISES. IF IT WERE SO, THE A. O. WOULD NOT HAVE INITIATED AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C. TH E A.O. UNDER THE MISTAKEN PREMISE THAT THE SURRENDER HAD BEEN MADE O N THE BASIS OF THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE BOOKS AND DOCUMENT AS SE IZED FROM THE APPELLANT'S PREMISES, RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA. 3.4 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA NEED TO BE REF ERRED AT THIS STAGE AND READ AS UNDER: 20[PENALTY WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED. 271AAA. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007 21[BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012], THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPLY IF THE ASSESSEE,- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MA NNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED,' AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME (3) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY REFERRED TO IN THIS SECT ION. EXPLANATION. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,- (A) 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' MEANS- (I) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENT ED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER V ALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, WHICH HAS- 5 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 (A) NOT BEEN RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) OTHERWISE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE 22[PRINCIPAL CH IEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 22[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR (II) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENT ED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF AN EXPENSE RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FA LSE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SO HAD THE SEARCH NOT BEEN CONDUCTED (B) 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' MEANS THE PREVIOUS YEAR- (I) WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, BUT THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE T HE SAID DATE; OR (II) IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. 3.4.1. PERUSAL OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 AAA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PENALTY CAN LEVIED UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 HAS TAKEN PLACE ON OR AFTER 01.06.2007 BUT BEFORE 01.07 .2012. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 19.10.2011 BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO SEARCH ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT IS VERY CLEARLY MENTIONED A T PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SEARCH ACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE AT TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES AND JAINCO GROUP AND THE DOCUMEN T SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PARTIES AS LISTED AT PAGE 2 HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE A.O OF THE APPELLANT FOR NECESSARY ACTION U/S 153C OF THE I.T ACT. ON RECEIVING THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON DAT ED 21.02.2014 AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE A.O. OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY INITIAT ED PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS ACCORDINGLY FOR THE A.Y.S 200 6-07 TO 2011-12. THE IMPUGNED YEAR BEING THE YEAR OF SEARCH (SEARCH TOOK PLACE EON 19.10.2011), THE ASSESSMENT STANDS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271 AAA AND THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ACCORDINGLY. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN R EITERATED AT THE PARA 4 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE SURRENDER OF RS. 210 CRORE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM APPELLA NT'S PREMISES. THESE ARE APPARENT FROM PERUSAL OF PARAS 2&5 OF THE PENALTY O RDER. THUS THE FACTS ON RECORD IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE FACTS MENTIONED AT PARA 2 AND PARA 5 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THE PRESENT PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS EMANATE FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE, THE FACTS MENTION ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE A.O HAVE TO BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE. IN SUM TOTA L, THEREFORE, THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH ON THE APPELLANT COMP ANY. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DELHI ITAT DECISION IN THE C ASE OF SAM INDIA ABHIMANYU HOUSING ITA NO. 1257/DEL/2015 WHEREIN THE FACTS WER E THAT THE PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COVERED U/S 132 I.E. NO SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE A SSESSEE WAS COVERED BY SURVEY U/S 133A. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE PENALTY 6 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 U/S 271AAA WAS LEGALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE. SINCE THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND EVEN BETTER, AS THERE IS NO MENTION O F EVEN SURVEY ACTION IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEGALLY SUS TAINED. 3.2.2 IT IS FOUND THAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT SE CTION 271AAA AND 271(L)(C) PENALTIES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND CANNOT BE SUBS TITUTED TO EACH OTHER. IN THE CASE OF MARVEL TEA ESTATE 171 TTJ 589 WHEN THE A.O LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) WHERE AS SEARCH TOOK PLACE AT 07.09.2008, THAT IS A FTER 01.06.2007 AS PROVIDED U/S 271AAA, IT WAS HELD BY THE DELHI ITAT THAT SECT ION 271AAA(3) MADE IT MANDATORY THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA IS TO B E INVOKED IN CASES WHERE SEARCH TOOK PLACE AFTER 01.06.2007 & THE PENALTY, I F ANY, HAD TO BE LEVIED ONLY UNDER 271AA- NOT 271(L)(C). APPLYING THE REVERSE LO GIC AS HELD BY THE ITAT DELHI IN THE AFORESTATED CASE, IN A CASE WHERE NO SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE AT THE ASSESSEE - PREMISES, NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA CAN BE LEVIED. IN S UCH A SITUATION, THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C). ACCORDI NGLY GROUNDS 1-3 ARE ALLOWED. 3.5 GROUNDS 4 TO 6 CHALLENGE THE PENALTY ON MERITS AS WELL AS THE CALCULATION OF THE SAID PENALTY. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DECISIONS OF D ELHI ITAT SUCH AS IN THE CASE OF NEERAT SINGHAL 146 ITD 152 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC QUERY REGARDING MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED AND ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE EARNING OF SUCH INCOME IN HIS REPLY U/S 132(4), THE PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, HOWEVER I DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE PENALTY STANDS DELETED VIDE GROUNDS 1 TO 3 ABOVE, THESE GROUNDS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SUCH ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE S IDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDE RED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY BOTH THE SIDES. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT NO SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2011 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE I.T ACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271AAA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAID PROVISION AS APPLICABLE TO CASES WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA AND THEREAFTER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271AAA. WE FIND IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE A.O HAS 7 ITA NO.6379/DEL/2016 CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DECLARED THE AMOUNTS SURRENDERED AS MISCELLANEOUS I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE INCOME, EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS EARNED AND HAS PAID THE TAXES DUE THEREON. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 2 71AAA FOR NON-LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE AND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICA BLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GI VEN BY THE LD.CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. A CCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A PILLAI) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12/02/2018 R. NAHEED */SUJEET COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI