Sh. Daljeet Singh, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 771/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9996 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHALIESH GUP TA S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Fair market value; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Competent authority; Assessment record; Onus to prove; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 69; 148; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI DALJEET SINGH, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 17 , 232 B, 3 RD FLOOR, NEW DELHI. OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, PHASE III, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN : ABJPS1140B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL & SHALIESH GUP TA, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.05.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM: THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) XXVI, NEW DELHI DATED 13.01.2015. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.6. HENCE, 2 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 GROUND NO.6 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND N O.7 IS REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AN D, HENCE, GROUND NO.7 IS DISMISSED AS NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED ON THE SAM E. THE SURVIVING GROUNDS, NAMELY, GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 RELATE TO THEISSUE OF VAL IDITY OF THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT . GROUNDS 5 TO 5.3 RELATE TO THE ISSUE OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A) ON MERIT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,45,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN A PROPERTY. 3. THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, HAD FURNISHED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 15.11.2008, ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8.92 CRO RES. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT DATED 18.01.20 07 IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2008 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,00,29,900/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.3.2013. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO THE DE TAILED REASONS AS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER DISPUTE, THE AO CONCLUDED THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT D ATED 26.3.2014, DETERMINING THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AT RS.12,38,56,450/-. T HE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3.45,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. 3 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,45,75,000/- ARE AS FOLLOWS :- THE ASSESSEE HAD 25% SHARE IN RESPECT OF A PROPER TY AT SATBARI VILLAGE AND PAID RS.1 CRORES AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM M/S. SPACE AGE TECHNICAL SERVICE S PVT. LTD [SATSPL] ON 28.3.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE (HAVING 25% SHARE), RACHPAL SINGH ( 50% SHARE) AND HARINDER SINGH (25% SHARE).THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF TINNA GROUP ON 11.11.2012. THE SELLER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY NA MELY M/S.SATSPL WAS PART OF THE GROUP CONCERN OF TINNA GROUP OF COMPANI ES. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF TINNA GROU P OF CASES, THE REVENUE SEIZED A VALUATION REPORT OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY PREPARED BY AN APPROVED VALUER, NAMELY, SRI ASHOK RAICHAND. THE APPROVED V ALUER, IN HIS VALUATION REPORT, ARRIVED AT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PRO PERTY AT RS.17.83 CRORES. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION R ECORDED IN THE SALE DEED WAS ONLY RS.4 CRORES FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13.83 CRORES [I.E., RS.17.83 4.00 CRORES] WAS THE PAYME NT MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES SHARE BEING 1/4 TH OF TOTAL VALUE OF RS.13.83 CRORES, A SUM OF RS.3.45,75,000/- WAS ADDED BY THE AO AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOIN G SO, THE AO BRUSHED ASIDE THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDIT Y OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ON MERITS THAT THE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE 4 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 BASIS OF A REPORT OF AN APPROVED OFFICER WHICH WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SELLER (SATSPL) WITHOUT ANY OTHER CORROBORAT IVE EVIDENCE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE, AMONG OTHERS, BEFORE THE CIT (A).THE CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT 5.1. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2008 DID NOT REFER TO THE MATTER OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY T HE APPELLANT. THE ONLY ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE THEREIN WERE RS 4 .50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT POSSESSING ROLEX WRIST WATCH: AND RS 2.98 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SOME UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE SEARCH/SURVEY ON 11/11/2000 ON TINNA GROUP THAT THE APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT WAS FOUND, WHICH VALUED THE TRANSACTED PROPERTY AT RS 17.83 CRORES A S ON 1611212006, AS AGAINST ITS REPORTED SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS 4 CRORES ON 28/3/2007, THAT LED TO THE REASONABLE BEL IEF OF THE AO THAT THE PROPERTY TRANSACTION HAD BEEN UNDER-REPORT ED BY THE BUYER AND THE SELLER, RESULTING IN INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT; THA T ALL MATERIAL, FACTS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED TRULY AND FULLY BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, IS OBVIOUSLY NOT CORRECT. SINCE THE MATTER OF UNDER-RE PORTING IN PROPERTY TRANSACTION CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPA RTMENT AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3 ), THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. 5.2. IN RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM, THAT PRO CEEDINGS COULD NOT BE INITIATED IN HIS CASE SINCE 4 YEARS HA D LAPSED, THE AO CATEGORICALLY INFORMED THE APPELLANT THAT THE RE -OPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY. NOW, SINCE THE RE-OPENING OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE W AS-AFTER THE, EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT AY, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 151 (1), THE APPROVAL OF TH E COMMISSIONER ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WAS MANDATORY. AS THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD REVEALS, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WERE CONSIDERED BY T HE COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMUNICATION OF HIS SATISFACT ION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS COMMUNICATED BY LETTER NO. 3961 5 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 DATED 25.03.2013, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO ON 2 6.03.2013. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, THAT THE NOT ICE U/S 148 WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIR Y OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A Y, WAS NOT MAINTAINA BLE. 5.3. THUS, BY COMMUNICATING THE REASONS FOR RE-OPEN ING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147, PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE MATER IAL (THE APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESS MENT, AND BY INFORMING THAT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED WITH T HE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE AO DISPOSE D THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS LETTER FIL ED ON 2112/2013. 5.4. SHEER OBDURACY OF THE APPELLANT IN PERSISTING WITH OBJECTION TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY SUBSEQ UENT LETTERS FILED ON 13/,1/2014 AND 26/2/2014, AND THEN CLAIMING IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISE D BY HIM HAD NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AO, MERITS OUTRIGHT R EJECTION. THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT, REPEATEDLY CHA LLENGING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, AND ASKING FOR DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION, INQUIRY AND FINDINGS OF THE AO, ARE EVIDENCES OF HI S BLATANT OBSTRUCTIONS TO STYMIE THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. HIS SUBMISSION IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS CONTAINED IN F ORM 35, THAT HE HAD 'PLACED ON RECORD VARIOUS CASES DECIDED BY COURTS' IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE NONE OF HIS LETTERS (FILED ON 02.12.2013, 13.01.2014, 26.02.2014) REFERRED TO ANY DECISION OF ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. 5.5. SINCE THE AD HAD PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE APPR OVED VALUER'S REPORT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAD FORME D HIS SATISFACTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT, AND WHICH W AS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING SEARCH/SURVEY ON 11111/2010 I N THE TINNA GROUP, MUCH AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 14 3(3) HAD BEEN PASSED ON 31.L2.2008,AND ALSO BECAUSE THE COMM ISSIONER WAS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM THAT I T WAS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF J URISDICTION U/S 148 IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW OR THA T THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS IMPROPER OR THAT THE FRAMING OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WAS WITHOUT PROPER JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, T HE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 148 IS HELD TO BE VA LID. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISM ISSED. 6 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 6. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE CIT ( A) ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE FIXED BY THE APPROVED VALUER IN HIS REPORT WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE SELLERS GROUP NAMELY TINNA GROUP OF CASES. THE CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE DVOS REPORT WHO HAD FIXED THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROP ERTY AT RS.1.64,28,000/- [THE DVOS REPORT WAS TAKEN BY THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELLER]. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) WITH REFERENCE TO ISSUE ON MERIT READ AS FOLLOWS 6.3.4. SINCE IT IS NOT FOR THE APPELLANT, WHO WAS ONE OF THE CO-BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY TRANSACTED IN MARCH 2007, TO HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE 'PURPOSE' FOR WHICH THE SELLER (SPACE AGE TECHNICAL SERVICES P LTD) MIGHT HAVE ENG AGED THE SERVICES OF THE APPROVED VALUER IN DECEMBER 2006, H IS CLAIM - THAT THE VALUE OF RS 17.83 CRORES DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DID NOT REFLECT THE REAL VALUE BUT REPRESENTED INFLATED VALUE TO ENABLE SPACE AGE TECHNICAL SERVICES P LTD TO 'OBTAIN HIGH FINANCE' OR 'NEGOTIA TE ON THE BASIS OF INFLATED VALUE' AND 'GET GOOD PRICE' FOR T HE PROPERTY - LIES IN THE REALM OF IMAGINATION. IN ANY CASE, AS E VIDENT FROM THE SALE DEED, THE PROPERTY WAS NOT MORTGAGED BY TH E SELLER TO OBTAIN FINANCE. AS FOR THE 'PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATION' , IT MAY BE STATED THAT ONCE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY B ECAME KNOWN AT RS.17.83 CRORES, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DIS TRESS SALE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MINDLESS PROPOSITION FOR THE SELL ER TO CLOSE THE DEAL AT MERELY RS 4 CRORES. 6.3.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS OBVI OUS THAT- THE STATED VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS 4 CRORES FO R TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY B-3, ANSAL VILLA, VILLAGE SATBARI, TEHS IL MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI WAS NOT CORRECT; THAT THE MARKET VALUE DE TERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER AT RS 17.83 CRORES AS PER TH E VALUATION REPORT FOUND DURING SEARCH/SURVEY ON THE TINNA GROUP WAS THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION; AND THAT O UT OF RS.17.83 CRORES, THE BUYERS PAID ONLY RS 4 CRORES I N CHEQUE 7 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 AND THE BALANCE OF RS 13.83 CRORES WAS PAID ILL CAS H OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NOW, SINCE THE APPELLANT'S SHAR E IN THE PROPERTY WAS25%, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY HI M WAS HELD TO BE RS.4,45,75,000, OF WHICH RS.1 CRORE WAS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE REMAINING RS.3,45,7 5,000 WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH .OUT OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME. THUS THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING RS.3,45,75,000 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 6.3.6. AS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSME NT RECORDS, THE AO GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE A PPELLANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT IT W AS THE APPELLANT WHO ADOPTED RECALCITRANT STANCE. ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, THAT HE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE A O TO GRANT HIM OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE SUC H A REQUEST, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE S ELLER WAS NEVER POSITED BY THE AO AS HIS WITNESS. 6.3.7. THEREFORE, GROUNDS 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE RELIED ON BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR RE-OPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT A FRESH OR VAL ID MATERIAL WHICH CAN LEAD TO RE-OPEN OF AN ASSESSMENT AND RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ALONG AND IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION, THE FOL LOWING CASE LAWS ARE RELIED UPON, NAMELY: >ACIT V. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO 328 ITR 515 (SC) ; >MAHASHAYCHUNNILAL V. DCIT 362 ITR 314 (DEL) (II) THAT THE AO HAD TO SPECIFY IN THE REASONS RECO RDED, AS TO WHICH MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT AND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAID DISC LOSURE BY THE 8 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 AO WAS ABSENT IN THE REASONS RECORDED AND, THUS, TH E REASSESSMENT ORDER REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED ON THIS C OUNT ALONE REFER: GLOBAL SIGNATURES CABLE (INDIA) LTD. V. DCIT [368 ITR 609 (DEL)] (III) THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MERE LY BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE AO AS ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, AS SUCH, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW REFER: CIT V. USHA INTE RNATIONAL LTD [348 ITR 485 (DEL)]; (IV) THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS THE AO HAD SOLELY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER AND IN DOING SO , THE AO HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS INITIAL BURDEN WHICH RE STS UPON HIM U/S 69 OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE AO HAD FAILED TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION TO PROVE THAT T HE ALLEGED PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REFER : (A) CIT V. NAVEEN GERA 328 ITR 516 (DEL); (B) CIT V. PUNEET SABHARWAL 338 ITR 485 (DEL); (C) CIT V. SURAJ DEVI 328 ITR 604 (SC); (D) CIT V. VED PRAKASH CHOWDHARY 305 ITR 245 (DEL); & (E) CIT V. NARESH KHATTAR HUF 261 ITR 664 (DEL) (V) THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DT. 18.3.2014 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO BY IGNORING THE BASIC FACT THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND, THUS, ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN PURS UANCE THERETO WAS VOID-AB-INITIO WHICH REQUIRES TO BE QUA SHED. REFER: 113 DTR 19 [ITAT, BANGALORE] 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE. SHE HAD, FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT THE AO WAS WITHIN HIS REALM FOR INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRES ENT CASE. TO SUPPORT HERSTAND, THE LD. DR HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL 9 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAWA ABHAI SINGH V. DCIT REPORTED IN (2002) 253 ITR 0083 (DEL). THE LEARNED A RIN HIS REJOINDERSUB MITTED THAT THE VERY CASE RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DR WAS TAKEN NOTE OF BY TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITS SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F MAHASHAY CHUNNILAL V. DCIT REPORTED IN (2014) 362 ITR 0314 (DEL) AND HAD, IN FACT, DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF BA WA ABHAI SINGH (SUPRA). 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON A POINTED QUERY F ROM THE BENCH, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE CO-OWNERS OF T HE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE STILL PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT WA S, FURTHER, CLARIFIED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD ORIGINALLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE CO-OWNERS INLIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASES SINCE THE ADMITT ED TAXES, ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), WERE NOT PAID. THE EARLIER BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL RESTORED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND IT IN THIS CONTEXT THE MATTE R IS STILL PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE IN THE HA NDS OF THE SELLER IS ALSO PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE CIT (A). 10. THE TWIN ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N ARE, NAMELY : (I) WHETHER THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSU ANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS VALID? AND (II) WHETHER THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE AOS ACTION IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.3.45 CRORES U/S 69 OF THE ACT? 10 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 11. WE SHALL FIRST CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERITS, NA MELY, WHETHER THE ADDITION OF RS.3.45 CRORES WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. APPARENTLY, THE AO HAD SOLELY RELIED ON THE VALUATI ON REPORT PREPARED BY AN APPROVED VALUER WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING THE COUR SE OF A SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED IN TINNA GROUP OF CASES ON 11.11.2010 [SE LLERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY]. IN THE SAID REPORT, THE APPROVED VALUER HAD ALLEGEDLY ARRIVED AT THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AT RS.17.83 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDER-ST ATED THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY RS.13.83 CRORES [RS.17.83 RS.4 CRORES ]. APART FROM THIS, THERE WAS, APPARENTLY, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR MATERIA L IN HIS POSSESSION TO COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE SALE DEED WITH REFE RENCE TO THE PURCHASE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THOUGH THERE WERE AGREEMENTS FO R SALE FOR OTHER PROPERTIES SEIZED IN THE FORM OF A CD, THERE WAS NOTHING ON RE CORD TO SHOW THAT THOSE AGREEMENTS HAVE RESULTED IN SALE OF PROPERTIES AT T HE MENTIONED PRICES OF THE AGREEMENTS. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO HAD NO MATERIAL EVI DENCE ON HAND TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERSTATED THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. IN OTHER-WORDS, THE AO HAD NOT DISCHARGE D THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, UNDE RSTATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OFANY MATERIAL OR PROOF, THE AO CANNOT PROCEED TO RELY UPON THE VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY AN APPROVE D VALUER AND, THUS, COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDER STATED IN ITS VALUE. THE 11 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE APPROVED VALUER AN D SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SELLER HAD NOT DIVULGED THE REASON FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. THE SELLER ITSELF OBJECTED TO THE VALUE TO BE ADOPTED IN ITS H ANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER, THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO FOR VALUA TION. THE DVO OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD HIMSELF VALUED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.1,64,28,000/- WHICH WASFARBELOW THE SALE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF RS.4 CRORE S. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF RS.4 CRORES, ADMITTEDLY, WAS ABOVE THE GUI DELINE/CIRCLE RATES WHICH PREVAILED AT THAT RELEVANT PERIOD. 12. AT THIS JUNCTURE, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO TH E FACT THAT VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDER-STATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE RE VENUE. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY VARIOUS HONB LE COURTS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE ARE MENTIONED HEREUNDER: (I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NAVEEN GERA REPORTED IN (2010 ) 328 ITR 0516 (DEL), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT .THAT THE CONCEALED INCOME WAS DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FOU ND WHICH WOULD INDICATE SUCH CONCEALMENT. THE SEIZED MATERIAL CONTAINING THE SALE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTIE S WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO, HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED TO THE REVENUE BY THE RESPOND ENT- ASSESSEE UNDER THE VDIS. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY MR.PIYUUSH KAUSHIK THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATIN G EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HAS BEEN PAID OVER AND ABOVE THAN THE STATED AMOUNT, THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF IS O N THE 12 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDERSTATEME NT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UP ON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DVO. FURTHER, THE OPINION O F THE DVO, PER SE, IS NOT AN INFORMATION AND CANNOT BE RE LIED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE . (II) IN CIT V. PUNEET SABHARWAL (SUPRA), THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT .THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOLELY RELIED UPON THE REP ORT OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER. APART FROM THIS, THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSIO N TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID E XTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. THIS VERY ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATIO N BEFORE THIS COURT REPEATEDLY AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDGM ENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE (198 1) 131 ITR 597 (SC), THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION OF LAW IS R EITERATED TIME AND AGAIN. FOR OUR BENEFIT, WE MAY REFER TO T HE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. S URAJ DEVI (2010) 328 ITR 604 (DELHI), WHEREIN THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE UNDERSTAT EMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT I S ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN IS DISCHARGED THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UPON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THEN OPIN ION OF THE VALUATION OFFICER PER SE WAS NOT INFORMATION AND CO ULD NOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING R EJECTED WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE IN THAT CASE. (II) IN CIT V. SMT. SURAJ DEVI REPORTED IN (2010) 328 IT R 0604 (DEL), THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT - IT IS SETTLED THAT THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROO F TO PROVE UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT IS ONLY WHEN SUCH BURDEN IS DISCHARG ED THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO RELY UPON THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DVO.[SEE K P VARGHESE V ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT V. SHANKUNTALA DEVI (2009) 316 ITR 46 (DE L) AND 13 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 CIT V. VINODSINGHAL [I.T.A NO.482 OF 2010 DECIDED B Y THIS COURT ON MAY 5, 2010]. IN ANY EVENT, THE OPINION OF THE DVO, PER SE IS NOT AN INFORMATION AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING REJECTED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN T HE PRESENT CASE.. (IV) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASST. ACIT V. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) HAD HELD ( ON PAGE 515) THAT THE DEPARTMENT SOUGHT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFI CER (DVO). THE OPINION OF THE DVO PER SE IS NOT INFORMATION FO R THE PURPOSES OF REOPENING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, COLLECTED AND MUST FORM A BELIEF THEREON. 13. INCIDENTALLY IN THE CASE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AO HAD NEITHER APPLIED HIS MIND NOR FORMED A BELIEF, BUT, MERELY CAME TO THE C ONCLUSION, BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER FOUND DURING THE SEAR CH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF TINNA GROUP OF CASES, THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND UNDER DISPUTE WAS SHOWN HIGHLY UNDERSTATED AND, ACCORDINGLY, INITIATED PROC EEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE SELLER, THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR VALUATION AND HE ARRIVED AT THE VALUE OF RS.1.64CRORES WHICH WAS MUC H BELOW THAN THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY . THE VALUATION REPORT BEING ONLY AN OPINION, THE SAME CANNOT BE A SOLE BA SIS FOR MAKING AN ADDITION WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO HOLD THAT THE RE IS AN UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT 14 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 IN PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY, W HEN THE SALE PRICES MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS ARE MUCH ABOVE THE GUID ELINE/CIRCLE RATE. 14. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS AND A LSO IN CONSONANCE WITH THE JUDGEMENTS OF VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS (SUPRA), WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,45,75,000/-MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS THE AO HAD SOLELY PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 15. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE A CT, OUR FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18.01.2007. ADMITTEDLY, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND WHICH POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS UNDER-STATEMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IN THE SALE DEED. THE AO, IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN PURSUANCE OF THE SEARCH, WAS AWARE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGN ED PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REPLY DATED 25.11.2008 TO THE AOS QUERY, HAD MENTIONED THE FACT THAT HE MADE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LA ND FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE AND THE SALE DEED WAS ALSO ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE REPLY FILED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSEES REP LY ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT TO THE AOS QUERY IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDI NG WAS PLACED AT PAGES 14- 76 OF THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E AO, IN THE COURSE OF 15 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING, DID NOT REFER TO THE DVO TO AS CERTAIN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE E ND OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS APPLICABLE, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY CONCLUDED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. FOR READ Y REFERENCE, THE FIRST PROVISO OF THE SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 147PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SE CTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THI S SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETUR N UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FU LLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 16. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR, THE AO MUS T HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST BE OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO, INTER ALIA, DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED, THERE W OULD BE A BAR TO TAKING ANY ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, REASONS RECORDED FOR RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE PLACED AT PAGE 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUS E OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE TH E MATERIAL FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT, HE HAS NOT INDICATED AS TO WHICH MATERIAL FACT HAD NOT BEEN FULLY AND TRULY 16 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 DISCLOSED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RE-OPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLOBAL SIGNAL CABLES (INDIA) (P) LTD V. DCIT REPORTED IN ( 2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 114(DELHI). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT READ AS UNDER: 17. IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MENTIONED THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF THE F AILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOS E THE MATERIAL FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT, HE HAS NOT INDICATED AS TO WH ICH MATERIAL FACT HAD NOT BEEN FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER/ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, IN T HE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND THE SALE DEED WAS DULY ENCLOS ED IN THE ASSESSEES REPLY TO THE AOS QUERY. THE ONLY REASON FOR THE REOPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS THE ALLEGED SEIZURE OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPR OVED VALUER FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SELLERS OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE VALUA TION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER WAS NOTHING BUT AN OPINION EXPRESSED BY HIM. THEREFORE, WHEN ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED AND TAKEN NOTE OF BY T HE AO DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MERELY BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE AO. FOR T AKING THE ABOVE VIEW, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF (I) GLOBAL SIGNAL CABLES (INDIA) (P) LTD V . DCIT (SUPRA) AND (II) CIT V. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD REPORTED IN (2012) 348 ITR 0 485 (DEL). FURTHERMORE, AS 17 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 MENTIONED EARLIER, THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPR OVED VALUER BEING MERELY AN OPINION, THE SAME CANNOT BE SOUGHT TO BE RELIED ON BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NAME LY: (I) ACIT V. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. 328 ITR 515 (SC) ; (II) MAHASHAYCHUNNILAL V. DCIT 362 ITR 314 (DEL); & (III) CIT V. DHARAMVEERN SARDANA IN ITA 266/2012 DT.4.5.2 012 18. FURTHER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAWA ABHAI SINGH V. DCIT (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY TH E LEARNED D.R HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHA SHAY CHUNNILAL V. DCIT (SUPRA) AND DULY DISTINGUISHED. SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHASHAY CHUNNILAL V. DCI T BEING THE LATEST AND IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SAME, WE DECIDE THE REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 18 TH MAY DAY OF MAY, 2015 TS 18 ITA NO.771/DEL/2015 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.