Vatsal Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

ITA 7696/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Capital Gains
• Section: 234B; 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. VATSAL HOTELS PVT. LTD., B - 173, YAMUNA SPORTS COMPLEX, DELHI. PANAACCV3668A (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 26(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT/DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 10/09/2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS)-9, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. A.O. ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN I SSUING/SENDING NOTICES DATED 04/03/2016 U/S. 133(6) OF I.T. ACT ON WRONG AD DRESSES TO VARIOUS SHARE SUBSCRIBERS THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NO T CONFRONTING THE APPELLANT THAT NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF I.T. ACT HAD B EEN ISSUED/SENT TO VARIOUS SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WHICH HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK UNDE LIVERED THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. DATE OF HEARING 03.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2019 ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 2 3. THAT THE LD. A.O. ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,64,35,000 U/S. 68 OF I.T. ACT BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, G ENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF VARIOUS SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. AT A NY RATE, THE ADDITION AS MADE IS VERY EXCESSIVE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING VARIOUS OBSERVA TIONS WHICH ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT PARTICULARLY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONGWITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF I. T. RULES, WHEREAS NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.11,87,56,430 AND THE INCOME-TAX DEMAND OF RS.3,85,48,402/- AS WORKED OUT AND INTERE ST THEREON OF RS.1,38,37,608/- U/S. 234B AGGREGATING TO RS.5,23,8 6,010/- IS ILLEGAL. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AME ND/MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING HOTEL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF PARK ASCENT AT NOIDA (UP). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/2013 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.76,78,838 /-. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 20/04/2016 UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION MAINLY FOR THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED OF RS.12,64,35,000 /-BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 3 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. IN THE GROUNDS RAISED, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION OF RS.12,64,35,000/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN GROUND NO. 1 & 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE, INTER ALIA THAT NOTICES UND ER SECTION 133(6) WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE WRONG ADDRESS TO VA RIOUS SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WHICH HAD RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IGNORIN G THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FACTUALLY INCORRECT FINDING REGARDING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE GROUND NO. 5 IS RAISED IN RELATION TO INCOME TAX DEMAND AND INTEREST CONSEQUENT TO THE ADDITION SUST AINED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THA T DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY FROM FOLLOWING PERSONS: NAME OF APPLICANTS AMOUNT RECEIVED CCL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 4,70,75,000 TANVI FINCAP PVT LTD 20,00,000 ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 4 LOKESH CHAND 34,75,000 SARIKA GOEL 61,10,000 SAURABH GOEL 1,24,20,000 SAURABH GOEL HUF 5,00,000 SURESH CHAND 18,50,000 MANJU RANI 36,05,000 GYANINDRA SINGH 3,50,000 JG INTERNATIONAL 25,00,000 SHIPRA DAGA 3,00,000 VATSAL LIQUORS & BEVERAGES PVT LTD 2,55,00,000 AMARJEET SINGH 87,50,000 AMARJEET SINGH HUF 60,00,000 RAJINDRA ARORA 60,00,000 TOTAL 12,64,35,000 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28/12/2015 AND 27/01/2016 WAS NOT FOUND TO BE INCOMPLETE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE HE ISSUED A LETTER DATED 19/02/2016 INDIC ATING THE DEFICIENCY OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS B EFORE HIM. THE FURTHER INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT FOUN D SUFFICIENT BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 5 OFFICER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NO TICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO FEW PARTIES FOR VERIFYING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, BUT IN CASE OF M/S. CCL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND SURESH CHAND, THE NO TICES REMAINED UNDELIVERED AND IN CASE OF TANVI FINCAP P LTD, GYNINDRASINGH, J G INTERNATIONAL , THE NOTICES WERE DELIVERED BUT REPLIES WERE NOT RECEIVED. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE HIM EXCEPT ONE PARTY NAMELY SH. SUARABH GOEL . THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FOLLOWING CON CLUSIONS AS UNDER: A. ALL THE PERSONS HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS OF FICE TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY EXCEPT MR. SURABH GOEL. B. NOTICE U/S. 133(6) HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK UNDELIVER ED CREATES DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINITY OF THE PARTIES. C. NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED WHERE NOTICES U/S. 13 3(6) HAS BEEN DELIVERED TILL DATE OF THIS ORDER. D. NON SUBMISSION OF COMPLETE DOCUMENTS BY ASSESSEE AL SO CREATES DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSIONS AND VARIOUS DECISIONS RE LIED UPON, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY OF RS.12,64,35,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4.2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER SECTION RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 6 1962, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED. THE LD. CIT(A) ANALYSED THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.5 APART FROM WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT H AS ALSO PRODUCED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE AO AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. I HAVE EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS. INSTEA D OF SUPPORTING THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THESE DOCUMENTS ONLY REINFORCES THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WHICH ARE BASED ON HIS DETAILED AND WIDE ANALYSIS O F THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IS IN CONGRUENCE WITH THE DETAILED SET OF OBSERVATIONS AND FACTORS POINTED OUT BY THE INVESTI GATION WING. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PR OVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT TO PROVE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE WRONG. EXCEPT BY SCRIBBLING OVER THE SIMILAR SET OF DOCUME NTS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOWHERE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER OR CLARIFY ANY OF THE O BSERVATION LEVELLED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE EASILY CONSTRUED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY, AS OBVIOUS FR OM THE INDEPTH ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE MERELY SHAM AND BOGUS TRANSACTIONS, WITH AN INTENT TO MASK THE ACTUAL FACE OF THE AMOUN T RECEIVED VIA THE MODE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 5.6. AGAINST THE ABOVE BACKGROUND WHERE THE AO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLAN T PRODUCED A PICTURE WHICH IS OTHERWISE THAT OF THE APPELLANT, THE NON S UBMISSION OF COMPLETE DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS THE NON SERVICE/REPLIES OF TH E NOTICES, TRULY REFELECT THAT THE ACTUAL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION APPEAR TO BE A CAMOUFLAGE OVER THE REAL NATURE REFLECTED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, A HEAVIER ONUS IS CAST ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRAN SACTIONS, IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SUCH SHARE APPLICANTS, BY ADDU CING EVIDENCES AND GIVING EXPLANATIONS, WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF PROVING B EYOND ANY DOUBT THAT ITS TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE MONEY ARE DISTINCTLY GENUINE. APPELLANTS INSISTENCE ON THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS BASED ON SUCH MI NIMAL DOCUMENTS, FAILS TO MITIGATE THE SEVERITIES OF POINTED OUT BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE CORRESPONDING INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE DOCUMENTS P RESENTED BY THE APPELLANT. EVIDENCES AS WELL AS DETAILED ANALYSIS O F ALL THE PARAMETERS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT CONCERNS CLEARLY LAY OUT THE LACK O F GENUINENESS IN THE ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 7 TRANSACTIONS, AS WELL AS THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDI T WORTHINESS OF APPLICANT. THE APPELLANT, EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SUCH TRANSACTIONS. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE VERY FACT THAT ONE OF THE APPLICANT, IN HIS STATEMENT, HAS PRESENTED FACTS, THAT IS OTHE RWISE FALSE VIS A VIS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, GOES ON IN DEPT H TO PROVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SIMPLY COOKED UP AN ENTRY, TO HIDE TH E ACTUAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILE D A PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 566 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD NOT ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT IN CASE OF ALL THE PARTIES AND WHATEVER NOTICES ISSUED WERE AT WRONG ADDRESS RESULTING INTO NON-DEL IVERY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO RESPO ND THE FACT OF NON-DELIVERY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. HE FURTH ER REFERRED TO PAGE 560 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/08/20 18 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REQUESTING TO PRODUCE ALL THE PARTIES FROM W HOM FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RAISED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE A NY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES EITHER BEFORE HIM OR BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDED THE MATTER AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5.1. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN UNDERTAKING THAT IF MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DECIDING AFRESH, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 8 SHALL PRODUCE ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS ALONG WITH ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FOR NECESSARY EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT COMPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO. ONE AND TWO OF THE APPEAL, SHE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE SENT TO THE ADDRESSES PRO VIDED BY THE PERSONS IN THEIR ITR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THOSE PERSONS HAVE CHANGED THEIR ADDR ESSES IN THE LATEST ITR FILED, AND THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE FAULTED F OR NON-DELIVERY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 19/02/2016 WITH DIRECTION TO PRODUCE THE SHARE APPLICANT PARTI ES AND THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM WITH AN INTENTI ON TO THWART THE ENQUIRY. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EMPIRE BIOTECH P LTD 361 ITR 258 (DEL) WHERE IT IS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR TRIES TO AVOI D THE APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IT NECESSARILY CREATES DIFFICU LTIES AND PREVENTS ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUTH AND CORRECT FACTS AS THE AO IS DENIED ADVANTAGE OF THE ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 9 ATTENDANCE BEFORE HIM AND ADVERSE OPINION SHOULD BE DRAWN. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL, THE LD DR REFERRED TO D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON AND STEEL (P) LTD REPORTED IN (2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 48(SC). SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS OASIS HOSPITALITIES PRI VATE LIMITED 333 ITR 119 (DEL) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT MERELY PROVIDING THE IDENTI TY OF THE INVESTOR DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE CAPACITY OR CREDITWORTHINESS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WAS A PENNY STOCK COMPANY WHICH PROVIDED BOGUS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED ON DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 17/01/2019 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NDR PROMOTERS PRI VATE LIMITED IN ITA 49/2018. IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS, SHE OBJECTED FOR RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 13 3(6) HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT PARTIES AND THE NOTICES HAV E BEEN ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDRESSES OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS PROVIDED IN R ETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THEM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THOSE ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 10 SHARE APPLICANT PARTIES SHIFTED TO NEW ADDRESSES AN D THEREFORE THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THEM. THE CONTENTION OF TH E REVENUE IS THAT ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND CORRECT ADD RESS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THOSE PARTIES COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE AL SO FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, BEFORE US, THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN UNDERTAKING THAT IF MATTER IS RESTORED BACK T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PRODUCE ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT PART IES ALONG WITH ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDEN TITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE THA T THE ASSESSEE MUST BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ALL THOSE SHARE APPLICANT PARTIES, WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE DESPITE REQUEST ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE INVOLV ED IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT PARTIES BEFORE THE ITA NO. 7696/DEL/2018 11 ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES WHICH IT WANTS TO RELY UPON. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDING LY ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/11/2019. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KA NT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/11 / 2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI