Sh. Ram Kumar, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 785/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.785/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2006-07 SH. RAM KUMAR HOUSE NO. 135, SURYA NIKETAN, DELHI 110 092 (PAN: AGGPK6375E) VS. ITO, WARD 35(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV, SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/1/2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N SUSTAINING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,47,123/- AS AGA INST AN ADDITION OF RS. 16,58,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 1.1 THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE B ASIC FACT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING T O RS. 16,58,000/- WAS DULY EXPLAINED TO THE LD. CIT(A), W HICH EXPLANATION HAS BEEN ARBITRARILY REJECTED AND THAT TOO ON ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND HENCE THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS UNSUSTAINABLE AN D LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2 1.2 THAT THE ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) WHILE SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN RECORDED WITH PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND BY ARBITRARILY BRUSHING AS IDE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS / EVIDENCES / MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WHICH WERE FURNISHED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT TH E FACT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR IN THE INSTANT CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAIN ING THE PART DISALLOWANCE AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT PROVIDING TO THE ASSESSEE, A FAIR, PROPER AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS, SUCH AN ORDER OF ITS VITIATED BOTH ON FACT AND IN L AW. 2. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMIS SION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL VIDE ITS APPLICATION DATED 06.9.20 16 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED DEC ISIONS IN THE CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC), (LEGAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME IN COLLATERAL AND SECOND ROUND ALSO). THE LEGAL GROUN D CAN BE VERY WELL RAISED FOR FIRST BEFORE THE ITAT WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE LEGAL ADDITIONAL GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESEEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND IS LIABLE TO BE 3 QUASHED, AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT KEEPI NG IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN T HE CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC) (SUPRA), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ADMITTED AND DECIDED FIRST. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND (LEGAL) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS PERUSI NG THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ALONGWITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NTPC LIMITED 229 ITR 383 (SUPRA), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS A PPLICATION DATED 6.9.2016 IS PURELY LEGAL GROUND AND DID NOT REQU IRE FRESH FACTS WHICH IS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MAT TER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I ADMIT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAW OF NTPC LIMITED (SUPRA) AND P ROCEED TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FIRST. 6. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN ON 23.2.2007 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,01,850/-. THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BASED ON AIR INFORMATION THA T ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 16,58,000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT WI TH VIJAYA BANK, VIGYAN VIHAR BRANCH. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED 4 BY THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EXPARTE U NDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 26.12.2008 AND THE ENTI RE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 16,58,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 26.12.2 008, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 09.1.2015 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE HAS ONLY ARGUED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND I.E. LEGAL GROUND IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND IS LIAB LE TO BE QUASHED, AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED A ND SERVED ON ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE ILLEGAL, UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED . 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBM ISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND IS LIAB LE TO BE QUASHED, AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED A ND SERVED ON ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ITIATED ARE ILLEGAL, UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO 5 FRAMED BY THE AO IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. MY VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, HONBLE HIGH COURTS, COORDINATE BENCHES OF T HE ITAT DECISIONS:- ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [(2010) 321 ITR 36 2 (SC)] HELD: IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 143 (2). THE ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) IS MANDA TORY AND NOT PROCEDURAL. IF THE NOTICE IS NOT SERVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID REASSESSMENT-----NO TICE----- ASSESSEE INTIMATING ORIGINAL RETURN BE TREATED AS F RESH RETURN--- REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED DESPITE ASSESSEE FILING AFFIDAVIT DENYING SERVICED OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)---- ASSESSING OFFICER NOT REPRESENTING BEFORE COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) THAT NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED---- REASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID DUE TO WANT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)--- INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, SS. 143, 147, 148(1), PROV.----ITO V. R.K. GUPTA [308 I TR 49 (DELHI)TRIBU., CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF CIT VS. M/S PANORAMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN TAX APPE AL NO. 435 OF 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2011 OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ISSUE INVOLVED: 'WHETHER NON-ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, MADE THE WHOLE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER NULL AND VOID AND BAD IN LAW, DESPITE THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING RAISED ANY OBJECTION BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT? ' HELD: IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD T HAT SECTION 292BB CURES THE DEFECTS IN SERVICE OF NOTICE BUT SE CTION 292BB IS 'CONFINED TO ONLY SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER THIS ACT AND THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO 'ISSUANCE OF NOTICE' UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. IT DOES NOT LA Y 6 DOWN THAT IF A MANDATORY NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FIXED UNDER THE LAW, THEN SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHIN TIME. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT RESORT CANNOT BE TAKE N BY THE REVENUE TO SECTION 292BH TO GIVE A GO-BYE TO MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WITHIN THE STATUTORY FIXED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION I43(2) OF THE ACT. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COURT OF ALL AHABAD. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COURT OF ALL AHABAD. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COURT OF ALL AHABAD. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA 336 ITR 678, HIGH COURT OF ALL AHABAD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: TC( A). NO. 159 OF M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: TC( A). NO. 159 OF M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: TC( A). NO. 159 OF M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS VS. ITO: TC( A). NO. 159 OF 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] 2006 DATED 17.07.2012 (MAD HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (MAD) 289] RELEVANT PARA REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: '13. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 ALSO USES THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRE D TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139'. THUS, UNDERSTANDING THIS PROVIS IONS IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, ON TH E FACTS AVAILABLE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, COMPLIANCE OF THE PRO CEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTIONS 142 AND 143 (2) IS MANDATORY. O N THE ADMITTED FACT THAT BEYOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142( 1), THERE WAS NO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2), AND IN THE LIGH T OF THE FACT THAT THE VERY BASIS OF THE REASSESSMENT WAS THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISCLOSING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISIN G ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASS ESSEE HAD REQUESTED THE OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT TH ERE WAS TOTAL FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE FROM COMPLYING W ITH THE 7 PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , WHICH IS MANDATORY ONE AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT. ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [( 2012) 341 ITR 247 ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [( 2012) 341 ITR 247 ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [( 2012) 341 ITR 247 ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT & ORS: [( 2012) 341 ITR 247 (DEL) (DEL) (DEL) (DEL) HELD: THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT IS MANDATORY AND IS NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL PROCEDUR AL REQUIREMENT. OMISSION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) IS NOT CURABLE AND THE REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. S. 143(2) IS APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 & 148. JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (LUCKNOW) - -- - SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHREEJAI SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. SHIV SHONHOR TRADERS (P) LTD. - -- - A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. - -- - 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 09 09 09 REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 WITHOUT ISSUE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ILLEGAL. RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO - -- - (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (2005) 94 ITD 1 (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) (DEL)(SB) LIMITATION FOR RE-ASSESSMENT- SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IN TIME - A.Y.1995-96. IT WAS PRESUMED BY LEGAL FICTION THAT A RETURN FILED ULS 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WOULD BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED IT S RETURN IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF FIL ING THE RETURN U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS MANDATORY, BUT THE NOTICE HAD BE EN SERVED BEYOND 12 MONTHS. THEREFORE, AS THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED BY LIMIT ATION, NO RE- ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE U/S 143(3) R/W S.147 OF TH E ACT.- ITAT DELHI F SPECIAL BENCH. CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED CIT & ANR. VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL (ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT) REPORTED IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 IN 346 ITR 67 WE ALSO MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE QUESTION OF SECTI ON 292BB OF THE ACT PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE REVENU E HEREIN 8 CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT IN INCO ME TAX APPEAL NO.286 OF 20 11, DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 23, 201 1 (CLT V. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL SINCE REPORTED IN [201 2L 345 ITR 29 (ALL)) AND THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 292BB IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE AUTHORI TY DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED FURTHER AND MALE ASSES SMENT. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. DELHI KALYAN SAMITI VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER : VIDE ITA NO. 696/2015 DATED 22.3.2016 HELD AS UNDER :- -- - MR. JAINS CONTENTION THAT A BELATED RETURN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED AS AN INVAL ID RETURN, PRIMA FACIE, APPEARS TO BE MERITED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAID QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE AS THE AO HA D ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2011, INTER ALIA, CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS RETURN. FURTHER, ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2007, THE AO WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF FILING ITS REUTNR AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS REQUESTED. THE AO HAD ACCEDED TO HIS REQUEST, WHICH WOULD BE W HOLLY UNNECESSARY IF THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A BELATE D RETURN WOULD BE INVALID. THUS, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE IGNORED BY THE AO. 12. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION S AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS AFORESAID, I AM OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 9 TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN DI SPUTE IS INVALID, VOID ABNITIO AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND I S NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER STAND CANCELLED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/02/2017. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 17/02/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES