VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6972/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6720 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN SHRI ASHISH GOEL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68; 148; 263; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., 105, VISHWAS SADAN, 9 DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI 110 058. PAN AAACV4309A VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI VED JAIN, ADVOCATE SHRI ASHISH GOEL, C.A. AND SHRI RISHAB JAIN, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .0 7 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .0 7 .2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-23, NEW DELHI, DATED 29 .09.2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2001-2002. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME OF RS.26,98,70 0/-, 2 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2004 AT AN INCOME OF RS.46,98,702/-. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WENT UPTO THE ITAT WHEREIN A RELIEF OF RS.20 LAC WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AFTER APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS WO RKED-OUT TO RS.26,98,700/-. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS REOPENED UND ER SECTION 148 AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF RS.9.00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S CHANAKYA FINVEST PVT. LTD. AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) AT AN I NCOME OF RS.35,98,700/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2008. ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS DIS MISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2009. THE ASSESSEE FILED APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSU E REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 LACS TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN ITA.NO.3899/DEL./2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2010 W ITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER PROVID ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. IN VIEW OF TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 24.08.2 010 AND 3 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. 30.12.2013. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY APPEARED BEFORE A. O. AND FILED BANK STATEMENT, BUT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIR MATION OF THE CREDITOR, THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254/143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.201 4. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED IS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 153(2A ) OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 IS UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN DIRECT ION VIDE ORDER DATED 08 TH JUNE 2010 TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHIC H IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER TO THE EFFECT THA T 'AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 L ACS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE BY VI RTUE OF AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254, THE FRESH ASSESSMENT 4 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, IN WHICH ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. AS PER SECTION 153(2A ), THE ABOVE MENTIONED NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE A.Y 2001-02 U NDER APPEAL DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2013 RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TIME BARRED. THE S UBMISSIONS WERE ALSO MADE ON MERIT THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED SUFF ICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE A.O. AND IN CASE, THERE IS ANY DOUB T, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST THE INVESTO R FOR VERIFYING THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. CIT(A), AS REGAR DS THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARAS 5.1 TO 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5.1. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING CONTENTION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5.2. THE A.O. (DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI) ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 24 TH AUGUST 2010, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE 5 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. APPELLANT THAT THE MATTER GOT TIME BARRED ON 31.03.2012, HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 28.03.2014. THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX 196 1. 5.3. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF THE INCO ME TAX 1961, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2A ; NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTIONS (1) AND (2), IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1971, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION, 146 OR}IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER, UNDER SECTION 250, SECTION 254, SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM ME END OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 146 CANCELLING THE 6 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. ASSESSMENT IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR TH E ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. 5.4. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS CONTAI NED U/S 153(2A) WOULD SHOW THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED THEREIN IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THERE IS A DIRECTIO N OF MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL . HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM T HE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT, REPROD UCED IN PARA 4.2, ABOVE, THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED TO BE MADE, AFRESH. ONLY LIMITED ISSU E WAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE AO AS PER DIRECTIONS OF TH E HONBLE ITAT AND THE ENTIRE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS NOT DISTURBED BY THE HONBLE ITAT. THEREFORE, TH E 7 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 153(2A) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF T HE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F ILED ALL THE PREVIOUS ORDERS IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A), ASSESSMENT ORDER PUR SUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT, HAS TO BE MADE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIA L YEAR, IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT I S RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE A.O. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THIS LIMITED PERIOD, T HE SAID ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID ABINITIO. THE A.O. MADE SOLE AD DITION OF RS.9 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2008 UNDE R SECTION 147/143(3) WHICH WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TH E FILE OF A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2010. THEREFORE, LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254/143(3) EXPIRES ON 31.03.2012 WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HA S BEEN 8 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. PASSED ON 28.03.2014. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) MISUND ERSTOOD THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT AS WELL AS PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 153(2A) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOKI A INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT 2017-(9)-TMI-1298-DEL.-HC, IN WHIC H, IN PARAS 22 TO 25 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 22. HAVING PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT CAREFULLY AND THE OPERATIVE PORTIONS QUA WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER REMAN DED TO THE AO, THE COURT IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CO NTENTION OF LEARNED ASG THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE ITAT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SETTING ASIDE OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE AO TO PASS A FRES H ORDER. THE COURT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ASG THAT THE AO WAS 'CHAINED' BY THE ITAT'S DIRECTI ONS AND COULD NOT HAVE PASSED A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER DE N OVO PURSUANT TO SUCH REMAND. 9 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. 23. THE COURT IS ALSO UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CON TENTION THAT UNLESS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WHOLLY S ET ASIDE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE FRESH ORDER UNDER SECTION 153 (2A) WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED. THERE IS NO WARRANT F OR SUCH AN INTERPRETATION. THE OBJECT BEHIND INTRODUCT ION OF SUB-SECTION (2A) WAS TO PRESCRIBE A TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UPON THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT BEING SET ASIDE OR BEING CANCELLED IN APPEAL. CLEAR LY, THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO RESTRICT THE APPLICABILITY OF SUB-SECTION (2A) ONLY TO SUCH CASES WHERE THE 'ENTIRE' ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE. IT WAS NOTED THAT, ' UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 (3), SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY TIME LIMIT.' INDEED, SECTION 153 , AS IT STOOD AT THAT TIME, DID NOT PRESCRIBE ANY TIME LIMITS. SECTION 153 (3) (II), IN PARTICULAR, DID NOT REQUIRE THE ORDER PASSED THEREUNDER TO BE I SSUED WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR TIME LIMIT. FURTHER THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN 'ASSESSMENT' THAT IS SET ASI DE AND AN 'ASSESSMENT ORDER' BEING SET ASIDE. WHEN THE 10 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. ASSESSMENT ON AN ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER REMANDED, WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ISSUE HAS TO BE DETERMINED AFRESH, SECTION 153 (2 A) OF THE ACT WOULD GET ATTRACTED. 24. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT, ALONG WITH THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (2A), SUB-SECTION (3) UNDE RWENT A SIMULTANEOUS CHANGE. IT WAS EXPRESSLY MADE 'SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2A).' THIS MEANT THAT SECTION 153 (3) WOULD THEREAFTER APPLY ONLY TO SUCH CASES WHERE SECTION 153 (2A) DID NOT APPLY. IN OTHER WORDS, IN ALL INSTANCES OF AN AO HAVING TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMEN T ORDER UPON REMAND WHERE SECTION 153 (2A) WOULD APPLY, THE AO WOULD BE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE TIME- LIMIT IMPOSED BY SUB- SECTION (2A). WHERE THE AO WAS ONLY GIVING EFFECT T O AN APPELLATE ORDER, THEN SECTION 153 (3) (II) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY. 25. IN THE PRESENT CASE, OF THE SEVEN ISSUES, THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF FIVE WAS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES 11 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. REMANDED FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION. WHETHER THE REM AND WAS TO THE TPO OR THE DRP WOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFEREN CE AS LONG AS WHAT RESULTS FROM THE REMAND IS A FRESH ASS ESSMENT OF THE ISSUE. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE TIME LIMIT FO R COMPLETING THAT EXERCISE WAS GOVERNED BY SECTION 153 (2 A) OF THE ACT . 4.1. IN THE SAME JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN PARAS 32 TO 35 HELD AS UNDER : 32. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THE AFO RESAID DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT FULLY SUPPORTS T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HERE. THE DECISIONS OF THE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN GULABCHAND MOTILAL V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1988] 174 ITR 117 (MP), THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN BHARTI ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA [2008] 298 ITR 400 ( P&H) AND DEEP CHAND JAIN V. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 676 (P&H), AND THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. PAUL NOEL RODRIGUES [2015] 231 TAXMAN 811 (KAR), ALL HOLD LIKEWISE. THE KERALA HIG H COURT IN PATEL R.P. V. ACIT 2015 (5) KHC 370 HELD THAT SECTION 12 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. 153 (2 A) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY EVEN WHERE MORE THAN ONE ISSUE IS INVOLVED I.E. EVEN WHERE ONE OF THE ISSUES HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE AO FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION. 33. THE ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS 'FINDING' AND 'DIRECTIONS' BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJINDER NATH (SUPRA) WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 153 (3) (II) OF THE ACT AT A TIME WHEN SECTION 153 (2 A) OF THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN INTRODUCED SINCE THE RELEVANT AY IN THAT CASE WAS 1 956-57. THE SAID DECISION IS, THEREFORE, NOT OF HELP TO THE REVENUE. CONCLUSION 34. FOR ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT HOLDS THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS HAD TO NECESSARILY BE COMPLETED BY THE AO WITHIN THE TI ME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 153 (2 A) OF THE ACT . INASMUCH AS THE AO FAILED TO DO SO, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 14TH SEP TEMBER 2015 ISSUED BY THE AO AND ALL PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUEN TIAL THERETO INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 2ND DECEMBER 2015 PASSED BY THE AO ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE. 13 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. 35. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS BUT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH NO ORDERS AS TO COSTS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TIME BAR RED. THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED SECTION 153(2A) IN HIS FINDIN GS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 153(2A), AN ASSESSMENT ORDER, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE MADE BEFORE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH ORDER U NDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT IS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN TH IS CASE, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS ONLY IN THE ORIGIN AL RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE OF RS.9 LAKHS WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O . VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2010. THEREFORE, LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254/143(3) EXPIRED ON 31.03.201 2 WHEREAS, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED O N 14 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. 28.03.2014, THEREFORE, IT IS TIME BARRED. WHATEVER ISSUE HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR REJECTING THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE, HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOKIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (S UPRA), IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF NOKIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). I, ACC ORDINGLY, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS TIM E BARRED AND AS SUCH, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN VITIATED AND VOID ABINITIO. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE SAME. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN QUASHED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEE D TO DECIDE THE ADDITION ON MERIT WHICH IS LEFT WITH ACADEMIC D ISCUSSION ONLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) DELHI, DT. 09 TH JULY, 2018. JUDICIAL MEMBER VBP/- 15 ITA.NO.6972/DEL./2017 M/S. VIVEK FINANCIAL FOCUS LTD., NEW DELHI. COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.