OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 19(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6862/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5366 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Borrowed satisfaction; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 133(6); 143(1); 139(1); 64; 13; 22; 153C; 147; 131; 68; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD., 702, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI VS. ITO, WARD-19(1), NEW DELHI PAN :AAACO5036B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.7507/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO, WARD-19(1), NEW DELHI VS. OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD., 702, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PAN :AAACO5036B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NEERAJ MANGLA, CA DEPARTMENT BY MS. PRAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 15.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.05.2021 2 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 11/09/2018 PASSED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXV, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ( I.E. ITA NO. 6862/DEL/2018) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 30/03/2015 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY UPHEL D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE TO THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE BECAUSE OF GETTING AND GRANTING THE APPROVAL BY THE CONCERNED / COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN A MECHANICAL MANNER U/S 151 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 AS AGAINST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT TENABLE BECAUS E OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WIT HOUT HAVING ANY OF HIS INDEPENDENT SATISFACTION THEREUPON, TO THE INFORMAT ION RECEIVED M THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS WITHER NOT TENABLE UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVE STIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH REASONS FOR R EOPENING WERE RECORDED AND THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INVO KED, HAVE BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 99,98,400/- OUT OF THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO R S. 64,66,80,000/- MADE BY THE LD. AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDE N COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AS HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED U/S 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961, D ALL EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED AND PLACED UPON RECORDS . 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF COMMISSION @ 2% ON THE ADDITION SUSTAINED U/S 68 OF THE ACT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERI AL EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME ON THE RECORD, HAVING NEXUS TO THE INCOME DETE RMINED. 3 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 6. THAT THE APPELLANT ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TAKE ANY FURTHER GROUND AT ANY TIME EV EN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF INSTANT APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL (I .E. ITA NO. 7507/DEL/2018) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 64 ,94,15,232/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CRE DITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL/SH ARE PREMIUM IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COMMISSION PAID THEREON, DESP ITE THE FACT THN* HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS REQUIR ED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961?' 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION DESP ITE THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT SENT TO THE 80 SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WERE EITHER RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED OR NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED; MOST OF THE E-MAILS SENT TO THEM HAD BOUNCED BACK; STATUS O F MOST OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES ON MCA WEBSITE WAS EITHER STRU CK-OFF OR INACTIVE AND IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131(1)(D) OF THE ACT TO THE DDIT (INV.), UNIT-3(4), KOLKATA, HE REPO RTED THAT NO SUCH COMPANY. M/S JOYPRIT HOTELS PVT. LTD. OR M/S JOYPRI T PLASTIC BUILDERS PVT. LTD., EXISTED AT THE ADDRESSES IN KOLKATA, PRO VIDED IN THE CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FROM THEM AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS ANE TIDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS CAN NOT BE PROVED MERELY ON PAPER? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PCIT, DELHI-2 VS BEST INFRASTRUCTURE IN DIA PVT. LTD. IN IT A NO. 13/2017. WHOE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UP HELD THE ACTION OF THE IT AT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEES DIRECTORS DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF A NY OTHER INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FOUND /SEIZED DURING THE COU RSE OF THE SEARCH TO SUBSTANTIATE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT?. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD AND A LTER ANY FRESH GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND / OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF A PPEAL. 4 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT: (I) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN BUILDIN G AND DEVELOPING OF REAL ESTATE. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED INVESTMENT FROM 80 ENTITIES IN SHA RE CAPITAL OF RS.64,66,80,000/-AGAINST SUBSCRIBERS OF 77,800 SHARES HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS. 10 EACH AT A SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.590/- PER SHARE. (II) THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 139(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) ON 30/03/2010, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2, 389/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. (III) SUBSEQUENTLY, ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLKATA THAT ASSESSE E WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED OF 193 LAKHS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF 193 LAKHS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ISSUED NOTICE DATED 22/03/2016 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME. (IV) IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCO ME ON 20/04/2016, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,389/-. (V) THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PROVIDED A COPY OF REASONS RECODED ON 6/07/2016; 22/07/2016, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANT ED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. (VI) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER THE ACT FOR COMMENCING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE 5 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 PROCEEDINGS ON 16.08.2016, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAI LS OF SUBSCRIBERS OF SHARE CAPITAL, INCLUDING NAME AND AD DRESS. (VII) THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON 23/11/2016 AND 06/12/2016 WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28/11/2016 AND 09/12/2016 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PROVIDED COMPLETE ANNEXURES TO THE REASONS RECORDED ON 28/11 /2016 BUT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW CROSS EXAM INATION OF THE WITNESSES WAS DENIED AT THAT STAGE. (VIII) THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 14/12/2016 AN D 16/12/2016 FILED DETAILED CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT, LATEST ADDR ESS, BANK STATEMENTS, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX R ETURN, CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA) AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION (AOA) OF ALL SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES. (IX) THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF SHAR ES SUBSCRIBER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO AL L 80 SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. ON 27/12/2016, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I NFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME OF THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED AND OTHER REMAINED UNCOMPLIED AND THUS HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DIRECTOR(S) OF ALL THE 80 S UBSCRIBER ENTITIES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARES SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, HOWEVER, OBJECTED FOR ISSUE OF THE NOTICE UNDER 133(6) AT THE OLD ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS AND, REQUESTED NOT TO DRAW ADVERSE INFE RENCE. (X) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED A COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 131(D) OF THE ACT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)- KOLKATA FOR ENQUIRING EXISTENC E OF TO 6 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, NAMELY, M/S JOYPRIT HOTELS P. LT D. AND M/S. JOYPRIT PLASTICS DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ENQUIRY REPORT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN COMPANIES WERE NOT FOUND IN EXISTENCE AT TH E ADDRESS PROVIDED. (XI) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPLIED A COPY OF STATE MENT OF SRI PRAMOD RAMDEN SHARMA AND SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR AGRAWAL, WHEREIN SH. PRAMOD RAMDIN SHARMA ADMITTED OF USING TWO OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, I.E., M/S JOYPRIT HOTELS P.LTD. AND M/S. JOYPRIT PLASTIC DEALERS P. LTD., FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBTAINED A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM SH. PRAMOD RAMDIN S HARMA AND FURNISHED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON 21/12/2016. THE AFFIDAVIT MENTIONED THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY BOTH THOSE SHARES SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WERE OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THA T IN VIEW OF PAUCITY OF TIME, HE COULD NOT ACT UPON THE AFFID AVIT. (XII) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED STATEMEN T OF SH. PRAMOD RAMDEEN SHARMA, WHO WAS DIRECTOR OF THOSE COMPANIES. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE INVEST IGATION WING, KOLKATA, IN THE YEAR 2014. IN SAID STATEMENT, SH. PRAMOD RAMDEEN SHARMA ADMITTED OF WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE OFFICE OF SH. PRAVEEN AGRAWAL AND W AS ONLY A DUMMY DIRECTOR IN NUMBER OF COMPANIES, INCLUDING THOSE TWO COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CARRIED O UT INQUIRIES FROM REGISTRARS OF COMPANIES REGARDING SH ARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND FOUND THAT MANY COMPANIES WERE NOT ACTIVE. 7 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 (XIII) ON THE BASIS OF THE INQUIRIES CONDUCTED AND THE INFORMATION GATHERED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SHAR E SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE, NOT HAV ING THEIR OWN PROFIT-MAKING APPARATUS AND MONEY WAS ONLY ROTA TED THROUGH THOSE COMPANIES. HE ACCORDINGLY, TREATED TH E ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TOTALLING TO 64,66,80,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT, IN VIEW OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH IDE NTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARES SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF CASH CREDIT. HE A LSO MADE ADDITION FOR THE COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 2% PRESU MED TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES FROM ENTRY OPERATORS, WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT 1,29,63,600/-. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TOTAL ADDIT ION OF 65,96,13,600/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/12/2016 UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. (XIV) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE D REASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND OF BORROWED SATISFACTION, APPROVAL GRANTED IN MECHANIC AL MANNER, COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTI ON, NON- DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS FILED AGAINST REOPENING OF A SSESSMENT, NON-EXAMINATION OF PERSONS NAMED IN REASONS RECORDE D, CHANGE OF OPINION, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES N OT ALLOWED, ADDITIONS MADE AGAINST THE LAW AND THE PRO CEDURE SPECIFIED, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT I SSUED AT OLD ADDRESSES OF SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE NOT 8 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 ISSUED/SERVED ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED ADD ITION ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS SUBMITTED THAT FACT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GAGAN DEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED I.E. JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1613 OF 2014. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COMPARED ITS FACTS WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF PRABHATAM INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ACIT DECID ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2525/DEL/2015. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEE DING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR DEALING SUCH ALLE GATIONS. (XV) THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, REJECTED ITS CONTENTION ON THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD TH E VALIDITY OF THE REASONS RECORDED AS WELL AS UPHELD APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LEARNED PR. CIT FOR ISSUE OF THE NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ON THE ISSUE OF THE MERIT O F THE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DISCHARGING ITS ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH INCLUDED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS ST ATING THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN), RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENT OF SUBSCRIBERS, COMPANY MASTER DATA AVAIL ABLE WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF THE S UBSCRIBER COMPANIES. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PRABHATAM INVESTMENT PR IVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UP ON, THE LD. 9 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 CIT(A) ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE IN CASE OF EACH SUBSCRIBER AND CONCLUDED THAT EXCEPT F OUR SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF REMAINING SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS ESTABLISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PRO DUCED A TABLE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTAINING NAME AND DOC UMENTS FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS INCLU DING AVAILABILITY OF INVESTIBLE FUNDS WITH SHARE SUBSCRI BER COMPANIES. IN CASE OF FOUR SUBSCRIBERS, NAMELY, M/S ACHIEVERS LANDCONS P. LTD., CERASTIUM PRIVATE LIMIT ED, FLAIR BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED AND U-TURN CONSTRUCTION P RIVATE LIMITED, INVESTIBLE FUNDS OF 1,02,500/- WAS FOUND IN CASE OF EACH COMPANY, AND THEREFORE, HE CONCLUDED THAT THOS E FOUR COMPANIES FAILED ON THE TEST OF CREDITWORTHINESS. A CCORDINGLY, ON MERIT HE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF 99,98,400/- ( =24,99,600 X4 ) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ALSO CORRESPON DING COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 2%. IN RESPECT OF THE BAL ANCE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION O BSERVING AS UNDER: RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, WHICH I S ON SIMILAR FACTUAL MATRIX, IT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERR ED THAT MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IN RESPECT OF THE EQUITY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUS IONS DRAWN BY THE AO. NO SPECIFIC CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE EQUITY SUBSCRIPTION IS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. BESIDES, AP PELLANT HAS ALSO DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD BY THE APPELLANT H AVE ALSO BEEN MADE PART OF ORDER BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANIES HAVE NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENT REGARDING THE SHARE C APITAL / SHARE PREMIUM / SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND NO DISC LOSURE HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM / SHARE APPLICATION MONEY / UNSECURED LOAN. AS 10 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE ON THE VARIOUS LEGAL GROUNDS AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE. BASIS, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, F ACTS AND VARIOUS JUDGMENT AS PER DISCUSSIONS SUPRA, ADDITION OF RS 63,66,81.600 IS DELETED OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION U/S 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ADDITION @OF 2% ON ALLEGED COMMISSION PAID TO ENTRY OPERATOR IS ALSO DELETED O N PRO- RATUM BASIS, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. 5. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK IN TWO VOLUMES (PG- 1 TO 316 AND PG. 1 TO 55) THROUGH EMAILS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUPPORTED GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL. HE REFERRED TO COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING AVAILABLE AT PG. 19-23 OF PB-1 AND THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF W HICH, REASONS WERE RECORDED, AVAILABLE AT PG. 24-29 OF PB-1.HE REFERRE D TO MONEY TRAIL REPORTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF KOLKATA IN VA RIOUS ANNEXURES APPENDED TO REASONS RECORDED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE INVESTIGATION WING REPORTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15.26 CRORES IN 7 BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY SIX PROPRIETARY CONCERNS (CONCERNS LISTED IN ANN EXURE-C). THIS AMOUNT WAS THEN TRANSFERRED BY CHEQUES/RTGS INTO BANK ACCO UNTS OF ENTITIES I.E. PROPRIETARY CONCERNS, LISTED IN ANNEXURE C-1. THERE AFTER, THE MONEY TRAVELLED TO BANK ACCOUNTS OF ENTITIES LISTED IN AN NEXURE-I. THEN, MONEY TRAVELLED FURTHER TO ENTITIES LISTED IN ANNEXURE-S AND FINALLY THE MONEY LANDED IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF 21 ENTITIES I.E. THE REA L BENEFICIARIES, LISTED IN ANNEXURE B. THE TOTAL MONEY OF 23.49 CRORES HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING TO HAVE LANDED IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF ENTITIES LISTED IN ANNEXURE-B. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AL SO APPEARING IN THE LIST OF ENTITIES IN ANNEXURE- B AND AMOUNT OF 1.93 CRORE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY O F CHEQUE. IN THE 11 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRE D TO THIS AMOUNT OF 1.93 CRORE AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF R S.15.26 CRORES IDENTIFIED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT IS LESS THAN THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS.23.46 CRORES, WHICH SUBSTANTIATES THAT THE INFORMATION IS BASED O N PRESUMPTIONS AND THE LD. AO WITHOUT ANALYZING THE SAME PROCEEDED TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN A MECHAN ICAL MANNER. 6.2 HE FURTHER, ASSAILED THE REASONS RECORDED AND SUBM ITTED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND THE REA SONS RECORDED BY LD. AO, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON TH E BASIS OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION REPORT (STR) IN THE CASE OF SH. MANOHAR JAYKISHAN SHAH. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL. HOWEVER, AS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. AO HA S RELIED UPON STATEMENTS OF SH. PRAMOD RAMDIN SHARMA AND SH. PRAV EEN AGGARWAL WHICH WERE NOT THE BASIS OF RECORDING OF REASONS. T HE SAME AMOUNTS TO MODIFICATION OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SABH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 0198, NO MODIFICATION TO THE REASONS RECORDED COULD BE POSSIBLE. 6.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER REFERRED TO REPLY DATE D 05.01.2021RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE SPONSE TO QUERIES RAISED ON 07.12.2020 (SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RTI) ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO IN REPLY TO Q. NO. 2(B) OF RTI HAS STATED THAT FROM PE RUSAL OF BANK STATEMENTS AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.93 CRORE WAS FOUND CRE DITED FROM M/S JOYPRIT HOTEL PVT. LTD AND M/S JOYPRIT PLASTIC DEAL ERS PVT. LTD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT, HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK 12 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 STATEMENTS OF THOSE TWO CONCERNS, IT WAS EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.2.43 CRO RE FROM THOSE CONCERNS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD NOT VERIFIED BANK STATEMENTS AND ONLY TAKEN THE FIG URES OF RS. 1.93 CRORES FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTI GATION WING. 6.4 THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE R EASONS RECORDED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. AO EVEN DIDNT KNEW AS TO FROM WHICH ENTITY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.93 CRORES WAS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6.5 HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT REASONS RECORDED ARE BASED ON SUSPICION, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE WORDS USED IN REASONS REC ORDED, I.E., IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE M/S OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD. HAS RECEIVED BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM TO THE TUNE OF 1.93 CRORES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE ON BORROWED SATISFACTION OF INVESTIGATION WING, KOLKATA WITHOUT BRINGING ON REC ORD ANY MATERIAL FACT SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INVOLV ED IN THE MODUS OPERANDI OF RECEIPT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUST ACCEPTED THE INFORMATION IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND FAILED TO RECORD AN INDEPENDENT SATISFAC TION. 6.6 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT HONB LE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT HAS TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT RECOR DING OF REASONS AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND IS SINE QUA NON FOR VALID NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THUS, HE REQUESTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 M IGHT BE QUASHED AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLE TED BY LD. AO MIGHT BE ANNULLED FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF SH. DEVKI NANDAN BINDAL VS. ITO (ITA NO. 42 71/DEL/2019 DT. 18/12/2019). 13 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 7. IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.1, CHALLENGING THE APPROVA L GRANTED BY THE LEARNEDPR.CIT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER- BOOK (PB-1), WHICH IS A PROFORMA OF APPROVAL GRAN TED BY THE LEARNEDPR.CIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO COLU MN NO. 13 OF SAID PROFORMA AND SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED PR.CIT WHILE GR ANTING APPROVAL HAS PUT THE WORD YES IN MECHANICAL MANNER ONLY, WITHO UT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL PRODUCED OR AVAILABLE WI TH HIM, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. HE ALSO REFERRED TO COLU MN NO. 7 OF THE SAID PROFORMA WHEREIN RELEVANT SECTION FOR REOPENING HAS BEEN QUOTED AS SECTION 147(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NO LONGER IN OP ERATION/EXISTENCE. 7.1 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEET FORMING PART OF THE APPROVAL (AVAILABLE ON PAGE 23 OF PB-1) ACCO RDED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT DO NOT HAVE HIS SIGNATURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE OBSERVATIONS CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT APPROVAL UNDE R SECTION 151 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ON THE BASIS OF SAID MECHANICAL APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE PR. CIT-7, NEW DELHI, THE NOT ICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON 22.03.2016 U/ S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. 7.2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN VIEW OF MECHA NICAL APPROVAL, THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 147/143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NEED TO BE QUASHED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS NC CABLE LTD. IN ITA 335/2015 AND DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH IN THE CAS E OF MADHU APARTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITA NO. 3869/DEL./2018 . 7.3 IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.3, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH M/S JOYPRIT HOTEL PVT. LTD AN D M/S JOYPRIT PLASTIC DEALERS PVT. LTD.; THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH LD. AO CLAIMED TO HAVE 14 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 RECEIVED THE INFORMATION. SINCE THE ORDER OF LD. AO HAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THERE DIDNT EXISTED ANY AD DITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS; THERE COULD NOT BE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS WHICH COULD BE RIG HTFULLY MADE BY LD. AO OR UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A).RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN FOLLOWING CASES: I. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT, 336 ITR 136 ( DELHI)(HC) II. CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS LIMITED, 331 ITR 236 (BOMBA Y)(HC) III. INS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, IT A NO. 9266/DEL/2019 DT. 26/10/2020 (PARA 28 TO 30; PAGE 1 62-163, PB) 7.4 IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO. 4 OF APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION U/ S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FOUR (4) SUBSCRIBERS ON THE PRETEXT THAT THOSE ENTITIES HAD INVESTIBLE FUNDS OF ONLY RS. 1,02,500/- EACH. IN TH IS REGARD, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FURNISHED AUDITED FIN ANCIALS OF THOSE SUBSCRIBERS FOR FY 2006-07 AND COULDNT FURNISH AUD ITED FINANCIALS FOR FY 2008-09, HOWEVER, THE FACT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY TH OSE COMPANIES WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT AND C ONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT. 7.5 IN RESPECT OF CAPACITY TO PAY IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T BY NOW IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY SETTLED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TH AT THOSE FUNDS MUST BE OWN FUNDS OR OUT OF EARNINGS BUT SAME COULD ALSO BE IN THE NATURE OF BORROWINGS. ( INS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, ITA NO. 9266/DEL/2019 DT. 26/10/2020, PG. 133, PB1 ). SINCE THOSE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE PAID FUNDS TO THE APPELLANT AND THE STATED FAC TS OF THE CASE IS NOT BEING CHALLENGED, APPLYING THE RATIO OF SEVERAL JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 15 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A),NO ADDITIONS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY LD. AO TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7.6 REGARDING THE GROUND NO. 5, THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF COMMISSION MADE BY LD. AO IS ON PRE SUMPTIONS AND SINCE THE PRIMARY ADDITIONS MADE BY LD. AO ARE NOT TENABLE UNDER THE LAW, THIS, CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS OF COMMISSION SH OULD ALSO BE DELETED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIF IED IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION THAT MATERIAL AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TANGIBLE MATERIAL OUTSIDE RECORD, WHICH WERE SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE VALID REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, SHE RELIED MAINLY ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (DELHI) BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE SLP FILED AGA INST WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT AS REPORTED IN 2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT. SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE LIST OF OTHER DECISIONS WHICH REVOLVE AROUND THE RATIO AS TO WHETHER THE MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING COULD BE CONSIDERED AS TANGIBLE MATERIAL FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 8.1 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNEDCOUN SEL THAT APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY LEARNEDPR.CIT IN MECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF THE MIND, THE LEARNED DR SUB MITTED THAT ABSENCE OF SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER-SHEET, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED. AS REGARDING THE MENTION OF S ECTION 147(B) OF THE ACT IN COLUMN NO. 7 OF THE PERFORMA, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE IN THE NATURE OF CLERICAL MISTAKE. RE GARDING GROUND NO.3 16 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ISSUE OF DELETION OF ADDITIONS BASED ON REASONS RECORDED HAS BEEN CHALLE NGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, UNTIL THEN, THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE APPLIED. REGARDING GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN FILED ON THE BASIS OF LACK OF CREDITWORTHINESS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE INFORMA TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. REGARDING GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT OF ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES RECEIVED WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE CO RRESPONDING COMMISSION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LEARNEDCI T(A). 8.2 WITH REFERENCE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA COULD NOT FIND THOSE TWO SHARE SUBSCRIBE R COMPANIES, NAMELY, M/S. JOYPRIT HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S JOYPRIT PLASTIC DEALER PVT. LTD. AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE ENTITIES WERE FREQUENTLY CHANGING THEIR ADDRE SSES EVEN ON THE WEBSITE OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN ORDER TO AVOID INVESTIGATION BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THE FACT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF THOSE TWO PARTIES AND OTHER PARTIES VERIFIED IN THE PROCESS OF NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR(S) OF THOSE SHARES SU BSCRIBER COMPANIES, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. SHE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT AT THE FAG END, OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D AFFIDAVIT OF SH PRAMOD RAMDEEN SHARMA, WHO WAS DIRECTOR IN M/S JOYP RIT HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S JOYPRIT PLASTIC DEALER PVT. LTD. DU RING THE PERIOD OF 17 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 INVESTMENT IN SHARES CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DING TO HER, ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS FILING AFFIDAVIT OF SRI P RAMOD RAMDIN SHARMA AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS ASKING HIS CROSS EXAMIN ATION. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROD UCE SH. PRAMOD RAMDIN SHARMA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERI FICATION OF HIS CONTENTION. SHE ALSO DRAWN ATTENTION TO A LONG LIST OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH, SH. SHARMA WAS DIRECTOR DURING THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED T HAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED, (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) . IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MIGHT BE SUSTAINED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN RELATION TO GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AL L THE DOCUMENTS TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. REG ARDING NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) RETURNED BACK, THE LEARNED COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED AT THE OLD ADDRESSES DESPITE THE NEW AD DRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING FINDING OF NON-EXISTENCE OF SHARES SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SAID REPORT WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO TH E ASSESSEE AND THE TWO PARTIES UNDER REFERENCE HAD SHIFTED THEIR ADDRE SSES TO MAHARASHTRA AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE LOCATED AT THE OLD ADD RESSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CO MPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO-THREE MONTHS AND ONLY TIME PERIOD OF ONE-DAY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHA RES SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND THEREAFTER ON THE NEXT DAY, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS 18 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SR I PRAMOD RAMDIN SHARMA RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND NO CR OSS-EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE BEING SPECIFIC ALLY ASKED MANY TIMES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF PRABHATAM INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF GAGANDEP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (SUPRA). 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS. AS FAR AS GROU ND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAL LENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT A PPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED BY THE LEARNEDPR.CIT IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF MIND AND, THEREFORE, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING MUST BE QUA SHED. FOR ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE, THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELEVANT PROFORMA OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PR . CIT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: REASON FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S, OMKAM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A.Y. 2009-10 (PAN:AAACQ5 036B) 1. NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD, 702, ARUACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA, ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 3. FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 4. PAN AAACO05036B PUC IS A PROPOSAL FOR REOPENING THE CASE U/S 147 O F THE ACT FOR THEFA.Y 2009- 10 IN THE PRESCRIBED PERFORMA. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INV ), UNIT-3{4 ), KOLKATA VIDE HIS LETTER DATED ADIT/U-3(4)/FIU-IND/MJS/15-16/4L1 DATED 22.06 .2015.WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED 19 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 THAT; IN THE SUSPICION TRANSACTION REPORT OF 100001 0583 IN THE NAME OF MANOHAR JAYKISHAN SHAH WAS RECEIVED AND IT WAS REPORTED IN THE I SAID FIU-IND-STR NO. 1000010583 THAT THERE WERE 311 LINKED ENTITIES AMON GST WHOM FUND TRANSFERS WERE MADE AND IN FEW ACCOUNTS THERE WERE DEPOSITS ALSO. IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID REPORT. BANK STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS ENTITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND ON INVESTIGATION, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT OMKAM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD (PAN AAACO5036B] WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES DURIN G THE F.Y 2008-09 RELEVANT A.Y.2009-10 AND THE AMOUNT BROUGHT THROUGH I ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANY IS RS. 193.00 LAKHS. COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT IN THE CASE OF MANOHAR JA Y KISHAN SHAH IN CONNECTION WITH FIU-IND-STR NO.1000010583 IS REPROD UCED BELOW:- A. BACKGROUND: ONE SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION REPORT WAS RECEIVED IN THE MONTH NOVEMBER, 2009 FROM FIU-IND. IN THE SAID REPORT, 31 RELATED A CCOUNTS WERE REPORTED OUT OF WHICH 12 ACCOUNTSWERE FOUND TO BE ASSOCIATED, WITH BUSINESS OF METAL TRADING WHEREIN MR. MANOHARJAYKISHAN SHAH IS A PROPRIETOR/S IGNATORY. THERE ARE OTHER 19 OUTSTATION BRANCH ACCOUNTSWHICH ARE LINKED/CONNECTE D TO MAIN 12 ACCOUNTS AND HAVING NON-RELATED BUSINESS/NOT IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS ACCOUNTS. DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2008-09, HIGH, VALUE CHEQUES TOTALING AROUND RS. 2030 CRORE ARE DEPOSIT AT OUTSTATION BRANCHES IN THESE ACCOUNTS. SUBSEQUENT TO WHICH ON REALISATION OF HIG H VALUE CREDIT AMOUNT, DEBIT INTERNAL TRANSFERTRANSACTION OF LARGE VALUE AND IN ROUND FIGURES HAS BEEN, TRANSACTED WITHIN CONNECTED GROUP/LINKED ACCOUNTS. THE CUMULAT IVE TURNOVER IN 31 ACCOUNTS DISCUSSED WAS REPORTED TOBE 673 CRORES. B. VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND INVESTIGATIONS DONE: TO VERIFY IN THE STR, THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL 31 A CCOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE STR WERE REQUISITIONED FROM THE BANK AND SCRUTINIZE D. THE 31 BANK ACCOUNTS- WERE OPENED ATDIFFERENT, BRANCHES OF THE DEVELOPMENT CRE DIT BANK. THE FOLLOWING, FACTS EMERGED FROM THE SCRUTINY OF BANK ACCOUNTS: I. THERE WERE 7 BANK ACCOUNTS BELONGING TO 6 ENTITI ES IN WHICH CASH OF RS. 15.26 CRORE WAS DEPOSITED IN THE F.Y.-2008-09: THE CASH D EPOSITED WERE SWIFTLY TRANSFERRED TO OTHER ENTITIES THROUGH CHEQUES/RTGS. THESE-6 ENTITIES ARE PROPRIETORSHIPS. THE DETAIL IS GIVEN AS PER ANNEXUR E-C. THE FUNDS FROM OTHER ENTITIES THROUGH CHEQUES/RTGS WERE ALSO RECEIVED IN THESE A CCOUNTS. THE DETAILS OF ANOTHER 21PROPRIETORSHIPS GIVEN ARE STR IS AS PER A NNEXURE-C1. II. THE FIND FROM THE ENTITIES MENTIONED IN ANNEXUR E-C AND C1 WERE TRANSFERRED TO A NUMBER OF ENTITIES WHICH ARE MOSTLY ENTITIES ALRE ADY IDENTIFIED AS THE COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY THE ENTRY OPERATORS, FEW OF THEM HAVE BEEN LISTED IN ANNEXURE-1. III. THE FUND WAS ROTATED AMONG THE ENTITIES DETAIL ED IN ANNEXURE-C, C1 AND ANNEXURE-1 20 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 IV. THERE WERE 6 BANK ACCOUNTS BELONGING TO 6 COMPA NIES IN WHICH FUNDS WERE RECEIVED FROM MOSTLY ENTITIES DISCUSSED IN ANNEXURE -C, C1 AND ANNEXURE-1 AND THE SAME WAS SWIFTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE OTHER ENTITIES (MOSTLY COMPANIES). THE DETAILS OF 6 SUCH COMPANIES ARE GIVEN IN ANNEXURE -5 V. THE FUND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ENTITIES WHICH ARE THE REAL BENEFICIARY OF THE FUNDS FROM THE COMPANIES MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-S. THE DET AILS OF SUCH, COMPANIES ARE GIVEN IN ANNEXURE B. MODUS OPERANDI OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATON ENTRY THE SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO THE INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES MENTIONED IN THE STR. THE FIELD VERIFICATION FROM THE INSPECTOR WAS ALSO DONE. IN MOST OF THE CASES EITHER THE SUMMONS COULD NOT HE SERVED OR THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE, THE FACTS OF IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THE BENEFICIARIES BEING SHELL C OMPANIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED AND RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT-1961 DURING THE INVESTIGATION IN OTHER CASES. THE FACT AS ALSO CORR OBORATED BY THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMONS AS WELL AS NON-EXISTENCE OF REAL BUSINE SS OF MOST OF THE ENTITIES MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-C, C1 AND L AND S. FLOW CHART OF CASH FLOW CASH DEPOSIT IN PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS LAYERING OF FUNDS THROUGH DUMMY PROPRIETORSHIPS AND SHELL COMPANIES FUND TRANSFER TO SHELL/PAPER COMPANY FUND TO THE BENEFICIARIES CONCLUSION (I) IN RETROSPECT IT CAN BE RIGHTLY CONCEDED THAT, THE BENEFICIARY COMPANIES HAVE INTRODUCED N CASH IN PRIMARY ACCOUNTS DISCUSSED IN ANNEXURE-C AND S SYMBOLIZED BY VARIOUS COMPANIES (CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE RE-1, AN NEXURE-S) OPERATED BY ENTRY OPERATORS BY ENTRY OPERATORS, THE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE BENEFICIARY COMPA NIES. (II) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WHICH H AS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE BENEFICIARIES OR THE RECIPIENT COMPANIES FROM THE B ANK ACCOUNTS OF PAPER COMPANIES DURING F.Y. 2008-09 IS DETAILS IN ANNEXURE-8. THE A.O. OF THE ALL BENEFICIARY (ANNEXURE-B) COMPAN IES IS BEING APPRAISED OF ] REGARDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ACCEPTED BY THE COMPA NIES IN F.Y. 2008-09. FURTHER, A.O. OF V CONCERNS LISTED IN ANNEXURE-C, C-L AND S IS ALSO BEING INTIMATED REGARDING, 21 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 CASH DEPOSIT AND CREDIT MADE IN DIFFERENT BANK CON TROLLED BY THEM FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE M/S OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD. HAS RECEIVED 'I BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.93 CRORES . THE INCOME TAX | RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO EXAMINED AND NOTICED THAT TH E SHARE PREMIUM; OF ASSESSES WAS INCREASED TO RS.81,28,52,000/- IN THE RELEVANT YEAR FROM RS. 17,69,50,000/-IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PARAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBT AINED SUCH ENTRIES THROUGH ABOVE MENTIONED MODUS-OPERANDI, IT IS ACTUA LLY ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY (CASH) WHICH WAS ROTATED THROUGH SUCH CHANNEL. THIS CASH WAS OUT OFHIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.9 3 CRORES HAS ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 WHICH WAS CHARG EABLE TO TAX. I AM ALSO SATISFIED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE TO I DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THE J ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS.193.00 L AKH AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITH THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT 1961 I HAVE PERUSED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE IN VESTIGATION WING,KOLKATA THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS SENT C OMPREHENSIVE DETAIL COMPRISING INTER ALIA THE BENEFICIARYS NAME, VALUE OF ENTRY T AKEN ETC. IN THE AFORESAID CASE AS PER RECORD FROM ITD, RETUR N OF INCOME WAS FILED ON DECLARING RS.2,389/- INCOME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S OMKAM DEVELOPERS LTD, RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO T HE TUNE OF RS.1.93,CRORES DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 FROM THE ENTRY OPERATORS AS MENTIONED IN THE CHART ABOVE AND SAME WAS NOT OFFER ED FOR TAXATION. HAVING PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION, I HA VE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPANY TO THE EXTENT OF R S.193 LAKH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THEREFORE, PROCEED INGS U/S 147 I.E. CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 2 OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS PROPOSED TO BE INITIATED FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. AS PER ITD RECORD, RETURN OF INCOME HAS FILED ON 3 0.03.2010 AT AN INCOME OF'RS.2,389/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. SINCE FOUR YEARS HAS BEEN EXPIRED FROM THE END OF T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THIS CASE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS THEREFORE I/REQUESTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ABOVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS PUT UP FOR KIND SATISFACTION OF PR.CIT, DELHI-7, NEW DELHI IN TERMS OF PROVISO, TO SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX AND APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 147 MAY KINDLY BE ACCORDED. 22 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 10.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFORMA FOR THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PCIT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN NO.13 FOR SA TISFACTION OF THE PR.CIT, HE HAS ONLY MENTIONED YES. NO OTHER INFORMATION I S AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR PROVIDED BY THE LD. DR, WHICH COULD ESTABLISH AP PLICATION OF MIND BY 23 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 THE CIT, WHILE GRANTING SANCTION/APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AS TO SUBST ANTIATE THAT MATTER WAS EVER DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ADDL. CIT AND THE LEARNED PR.CIT FOR ARRIVING AT SATISFACTION OF LEAR NED PR.CIT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN NO EVIDENCES WHETHER LD PCIT EXAMINED THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE LD AO FOR REOPENING, WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NC CABLE LTD (SUPRA) HELD THAT SECTION 151 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT LEARNED CIT, WHO IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM AN OPINION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NOTHING . IT IS NOT AS IF THE CIT HAS TO RECORD ELABORATE REASONS FOR AGREEING WI TH THE NOTING PUT UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME, SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORD ED OF THE GIVEN CASE, WHICH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MAN NER. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THAT CASE THE EXERCISE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN THE RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANING FUL, WHICH IS THE RATIONALE FOR SAFEGUARD OF AN APPROVAL BY A HIGH-RA NKING OFFICER. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, MERE MENTIONING OF YES FOR APPR OVAL, WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION OF THE MIND, AMOUNTS TO MEC HANICAL APPROVAL BY THE LEARNEDPR.CIT. 10.2 FURTHER IN COLUMN NO. 7 OF THE PROFORMA, THE SECTI ON FOR INVOKING REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED AS 147(B) OF THE ACT . DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, SECTION 147(B) WAS NO LONGER IN EX ISTENCE. THIS SHOWS THAT THE LD. AO HAS FILED THE PROFORMA IN MECHANICA LLY MANNER AND LD. CIT HAS ALSO APPROVED THE SAME MECHANICALLY. IN TH E CASE OF MADHU APARTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO, ITA.NOS.3869 & 3 870/DEL./2018 24 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATE D 01/02/2021 HELD AS UNDER: 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, DELHI G-BENCH, DELHI IN THE CASE OF VRC TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., DELHI (SUPRA) IN WHICH REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW A ND SANCTION ACCORDED BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY WAS ALSO FOUND INVALID, THERE FORE, REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS QUASHED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED-OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT, HE HAS REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT SECTION 147(B) AS MENTIONED IN THE REASON AND FORMAT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL HUMAN ERROR WHICH IS CURABLE UNDER SE CTION 292B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE ORD ER OF VRC TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., (SUPRA) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KALPANA SHANTILAL HARIA VS. ACIT [2017] 100 CCH 165 (BOM.). FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONS FOR DECISION, WE SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS. ALL ADDITIONS STAND DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, ALSO THE LEARNED DR HAS ARGUED THAT THE MISTAKE OF NOTING SECTION UNDER SECTION 147(B) OF THE ACT FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS A CLERICAL MISTAKE, HOWE VER, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE DECISION HAS REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION AND QUASHED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND OF NON-APPLIC ATION OF MIND WHILE GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. 10.4 RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NC CABLE LTD (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD (SUPRA), WE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . 10.5 SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEE DING WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE, NO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD BE SUSTAINED. A S FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING VAL IDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE CONCERNED, SAME ARE RENDERED MEREL Y ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THOSE GROUNDS. AS 25 ITA NO.6862/DEL./2018 & 7507/DEL./2018 FAR AS GROUNDS OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING MERIT OF THE ADDITION ARE CONCERNED, SAME ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALREADY QUASHED BY US. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED, WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11TH MAY, 202 1 SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER DATED: 11 TH MAY, 2021. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI