WGF Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Noida V. ACIT Central Circle-27(2), New Delhi

ITA 8218/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHMA SINGH
• Keywords: Diversion of income; Revised return; Capital Gains
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI F BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) ITA NO.8218/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD., A-48, FF, SEC-2, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH-201301. PAN-AAACW0228P VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH.VINOD BINDAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SMT. SUSHMA SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 09.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10 .02.2021 ORDER PER N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- 9, NEW DELHI DATED 30.08.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE LEADS TO THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A):- (I) ADDITION OF RS.27,38,96,372/- AS THE TAXABLE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN; (II) ADDITION OF RS.27,76,90,000/- ON THE AMOUNT RE TURNED; ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 2 (III) ADDITION OF RS.28,60,000/- TOWARDS THE AMOUNT SPENT ON VARIOUS LEGAL MATTERS. 3. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES WAS HEARD AT L ENGTH. CASE RECORDS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE O F THE LD. COUNSEL, WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOKS IN THE LIGHT OF R ULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES. 4. THE APPELLANT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING AND INVESTING AND IT ALSO TRADES IN SHARE S AND COMMODITIES THOUGH NOT ON REGULAR BASIS. THE BUSINESS OF FINAN CING AND INVESTING INCLUDED LENDING/ADVANCING MONEY STANDING GUARANTOR . RETURN OF INCOME WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 29.09.2015 AND T HE SAME WAS REVISED ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.03.2017. THE ORIGINAL LY DECLARED LOSS OF RS.43.61 LAKHS WAS REVISED TO A LOSS OF RS.27.43 CR ORES. 5. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 3 6. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETU RN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WAS SUBSE QUENTLY WITHDRAWN IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN ITS ACTION. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER:- 4.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORTGAGED ITS PLOTS OF LAND OF VILLAGE CHHATAPRUR, NEW DELHI IN THE YEAR 2009 WITH INDIABU LLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (IBFSL) AS GUARANTOR TO SECURE THE LO ANS GIVEN BY IBFSL TO THE ASSESSEES ASSOCIATED CONCERNS. SINCE THE B ORROWERS COULD NOT REPAY THE LOAN, THE MORTGAGED PROPERLY THROUGH THE ASSESSEE AND RECOVERED THE LOAN. THE SURPLUS OF RS.27,45,97,098/- ON SALE OF SAID MO RTGAGED PROPERTY OVER ITS COST WAS ERRONEOUSLY DECLARED AS TAXABLE RECEIPT AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT NO.830056811290915 FILED ON 29.09.2015 AND ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BUSINESS LOSS SUFFERED DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE SURPLUS ON SALE OF THE PLOTS OF LAND M ORTGAGED TO THE LENDER IS NOT AT ALL TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE TO RECEIVER THE DEBTS OF THE LOANEES WHERE THE SAME CO NSIDERATION WAS TAKEN TO RECOVER THE LOAN BY THE LENDER AND NO MONE Y WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BENEFIT OR USE IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGEMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM (1997) 227 ITR 802 AND ADDL. CIT SPL. RANGE-26, NEW DELHI VS GLAD INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. (2006) ITD 227 (DELHI). ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 4 7. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND TITLE AND FREELY POSSESSED THE LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE AND THE LAND WAS SOLD IN THE MARKET AND THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNTS AND, THEREFORE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION CONFIRMS THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE PLOT OF L AND WAS SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET, IT DOES NOT MEAN TO FORECLOSURE OR ACT ION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LENDOR UNDER DISTRESS. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS FREE TO APPLY THE CAPITAL GAINS/SALE C ONSIDERATION FOR ANY PURPOSE. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIRMLY BELIEVED THAT THE K EY DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR IN DIVERSION OF INCOME IS THAT INCOME IN THA T SOURCE IS CHARGED WITH AN OVER-RIDING TITLE WHICH DIVERTS THE INCOME. REFERRING TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY C AME INTO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N IS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 7,38,96,372/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 5 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LENDERS WERE MAKING PRESSURE ON THE ASSESSEE TO HONOR ITS GUARANTEE TAKEN BY IT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE BORROWER. SINCE THE BORROWER DEFAULTED IN R EPAYING THE LOAN TAKEN FROM INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (IN S HORT IBFSL), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SELL THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY. 10. DEFENDING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, T HE LD. DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2015 AND POINTED OUT THAT UNDER CLAUSES (I) & (K), IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIO NED THAT THE VENDOR IS THE SOLE LAWFUL AND ABSOLUTE OWNER AND IN PEACE FUL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ENTIRE LAND AND THE VENDOR FURTHE R STATED THAT THE SAID LAND IS FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES, MORTGAGED CHARGES ETC. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD.DR THAT SINCE THE SALE DEED ITSEL F MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO MORTGAGE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SALE WAS FORCED SALE. 11. BUT, WE FIND THAT UNDER CLAUSE (J) OF THE SAME DEED, IT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY MENTIONED THAT THE VENDOR HAD CREATED FIRST CHARGE/EQUITABLE MORTGAGE ON THE SAID ENTIRE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE I BFSL BY MORTGAGE DEED DATED 06.03.2012 AND THE MORTGAGE DEED WAS REG ISTERED WITH THE ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 6 OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES OF DELHI AND HARYA NA AND THE SAID LAND HAD BEEN REDEEMED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDOR ON 1 0.04.2015. 12. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE PAYMENT SCHEDU LE MENTIONED IN THE SAID DEED AT PAGE 7, WE FIND THAT RS.3 CRORES W AS RECEIVED UPTO 09.04.2015 AND ON PAYMENT OF RS.3 CRORES TO IBFSL, THE MORTGAGE WAS RELEASED ON 10.04.2015. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ON 10 .04.2015, RS1.5 CRORES WERE RECEIVED AND ON 11.04.2015, RS.1.44 CRO RES WERE RECEIVED. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION RELIED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR. IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECISIONS RELI ED UPON BY THE LD. DR HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ADDL.CIT VS GLAD INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN BOTH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS GUARANTOR AND SINCE THE BORROWER COULD NOT REPAY THE MONEY, THE LENDER SOLD THE MORTGAGED/PLEDGED PROPERTY AND SALE CONSIDERATION W AS RECEIVED BY THE LENDOR AND ADJUSTED AGAINST SATISFACTION OF DEB T. A PERUSAL OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS SHOWS THAT THERE IS A BIG DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. IN ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY WAS SOLD DIRECTLY BY THE LEN DER WHO RECEIVED ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 7 THE SALE CONSIDERATION, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE CONSIDER ATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PAID T HE CONSIDERATION TO THE LENDER TO DISCHARGE ITS LIABILITIES. 14. AFTER CAREFULLY PERUSING THE DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DECIDING AS TO WHETHER THE SURPLUS OF SALE OF MORTG AGED PROPERTY IS TAXABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER IT WAS A FORCED SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY TO PAY TO THE LENDER OR THE SALE WAS AT FREE WILL A ND WHETHER ANY BENEFIT ACTUALLY ACCRUED/RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDER ATION AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS A FORCED SALE DUE TO THE PRESSU RE MOUNTED BY IBFSL. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THE PLOT OF LANDS WERE SOLD UNDER THE VIGIL AND DIRECTION OF IBFSL BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EN TIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS REALIZED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REAFTER THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN BY IBFSL IN DISCHARGE OF IT S LOAN. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 8 16. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THE BUYER DESIRED THE T RANSFER OF TITLE FROM THE OWNER TO AVOID ANY LITIGATION WITH THE OWN ER IN FUTURE AND THEREFORE, IBFSL, AFTER RECEIVING RS. 3 CRORES, REL EASED THE MORTGAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, FACILITATING THE ASSE SSEE TO SELL THE LAND WITH CLEAR TITLE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCO ME DID ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE SO LD THE SAID PLOTS OF LAND INVOLUNTARILY AS FORCED SALE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELATING TO SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY, WE DO NOT F IND ANY FORCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY , DISMISSED. 17. FACTS RELATING TO THE GRIEVANCE RELATED TO GROU ND NO.2 SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN GUARANTEES TO THE LENDER ON BEHALF OF THE BORROWERS AS GIVING GUARANTEE IS ONE OF THE BUSINES S OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR WHICH GUARANTEE COMMISSION IS CHAR GED. SEVEN BORROWER COMPANIES HAD TAKEN LOANS FROM IBFSL AND I BFSL REQUIRED THE GUARANTOR TO SECURE ITS LOAN. ACCORDINGLY, THE COM MITMENT AGREEMENT WAS MADE ON 18.11.2009 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 127 TO 131 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE APPELLANT COMPANY INTER-ALIA WITH OTHER THREE COMPANIES BECAME GUARANTORS BY MORTGAGING THEIR RES PECTIVE PLOTS OF LAND IN FAVOUR OF IBFSL. THE BORROWER COMPANIES AG REED TO PAY RS.20 CRORES AS COMMISSION IN LIEU OF THE GUARANTEE AND I F THE GUARANTEE IS ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 9 INVOKED BY THE LENDER, THEN THE BORROWERS WERE TO P AY ADDITIONAL RS.20 CRORES AS DAMAGES FOR THE HARDSHIP THE ASSESSEE WOU LD BEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BORROWER COMPANIES COMMITTED DEFA ULTS AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (GUARANTOR) HAD TO REPAY THE LOAN AMOUNTS. SINCE THE BORROWER COMPANIES OWNED SHARES OF LISTED COMPA NIES WHICH WERE PLACED WITH IBFSL AS SECURITIES, THE BORROWER COMPA NIES INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY REPAID TO IBFSL AND AS AND WHEN THE SHARES HELD AS SECURITY ARE RELEASED BY IB FSL, THE SHARES OF THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS GUARANTOR WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SHARES W ERE SOLD BY THE LENDER COMPANY TO RECOVER ITS DEBTS, THEREFORE, BOR ROWER COMPANIES COULD NOT GET THEIR SHARES BACK AND COULD NOT TRANS FER THE SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. SUBSEQUENTLY, A MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 16.03.2015 WAS ENTERED AS PER WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.36.50 CROR ES WAS ACCEPTED AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGAINST RS.64,26,92,00 0/- RECOVERABLE FROM CARISSA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD. (IN SHORT CIPL) BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS SETTLEMENT DEED IS PLACED AT PAGES 465 TO 468 OF TH E PAPER BOOK AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THE BALANCE LO AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.27,76,92,000/-. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 10 19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 36(2) O F THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY GUARANTEE COMMISSION FROM CIPL. 20. CIPL HAS PAID DONATION OF RS.10 CRORES AND EARN ED REVENUE OF RS.15 CRORES, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CIP L WAS NOT FINANCIALLY SOUND TO REPAY THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT ON TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.27,76,90,000/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 21. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING WHICH INCLUDED LENDING, ADVANCING MONE Y, STANDING GUARANTOR ETC. AND IN ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINE SS, THE ASSESSEE GAVE GUARANTEE TO THE BORROWINGS MADE BY CIPL. AS PER T HE AGREEMENT, CIPL WAS SUPPOSED TO TRANSFER SHARES HELD BY IT IN THE LISTED COMPANIES AFTER REPAYMENT OF ITS LOAN FROM IBFSL. SINCE IBFS L SOLD THE SHARES HELD BY IT AS SECURITY, CIPL WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO TRANSFER THE SHARES TO THE ASSESSEE. CIPL WAS IN DEBT TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.64.26 CRORES AND SINCE CIPL DEFAULTED IN ITS OBL IGATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SETTLE THE QUARREL BY WAY OF MEMORANDUM DEED DATED 16.03.2015 AND COULD RECOVER ONLY RS.36.50 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO WRITE OFF THE BALANCE RS .27,76,92,000/-. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 11 22. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE COLORABLE DEVICE AS THE SAME WAS NEVER ENTERED WITH ANY INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT AL L THE TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN WITH THIRD PARTIES THROUGH BANK ACC OUNTS OR REGISTERED MORTGAGE DEEDS ETC. IN THE REGULAR COURS E OF BUSINESS AND WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NOTHI NG COULD BE MANAGED AS THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SPREAD OVER A PERI OD OF FIVE YEARS. 23. DUE TO MAYHEM IN THE STOCK MARKET IN THE YEAR 2 008, THE STOCKS OF THE LISTED COMPANIES NOSE-DIVED AND THE BORROWER S SUFFERED HUGE LOSSES, NOTHING WAS RECOVERABLE FROM THEM AND THERE WAS NO POINT IN FILING LEGAL SUIT. IT IS TRUE THAT NO GUARANTEE CO MMISSION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CIPL BUT CIPL WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TRUE THAT CIPL MADE CERTAIN DONATIONS BUT THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUSI NESS MODULE OF CIPL. THE ASSESSEE COULD RECOVER ONLY RS.36.50 CRORES OUT OF RS.64.26 CRORES, THE BALANCE WRITTEN OFF MAY NOT FULFILL THE CONDITI ON OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT BUT DEFINITELY A BUSINESS LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CARRYING OUT ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. CONS IDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TOTALITY, THE WRITE OFF OF RS.27,76,92, 000/- IS DEFINITELY A BUSINESS LOSS AND DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. WE ACCORD INGLY DIRECT THE ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 12 ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.27,7 6,92,000/-, GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 24. FACTS RELATING TO GROUND NO.3 SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.35.80 LAKHS AS PAYMENT MADE FOR LEGAL PROFESSION AL CHARGES, THE DETAILS OF SAID PAYMENT IS AS UNDER:- A) RS.30,000/- PAID TO MR. ARUSH KHANNA B) RS.27,50,000/- PAID TO M/S PKA ADVOCATES C) RS.5,50,000/- PAID TO MR. KAPIL SIBAL D) RS. 2,50,000/- PAID TO MR. SHYAM DIVAN 25. ON PERUSAL OF THE BILL SHOW THAT SOME OF THE PA YMENTS DO NOT RELATE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. SINCE NO BIFURCATI ON HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO D ECIDE HOW MUCH OF THE CHARGES PAID PERTAIN TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT 75% OF THE EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON OTHER GROUP COMPANIES AND ACC ORDINGLY, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.28.60 LAKHS. ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 13 26. BEFORE US ALSO, THE COUNSEL WAS NOT IN A POSITI ON TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. FOR THE LACK OF EVIDENCES, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.03.2021. SD/- SD/- (KULD I P SINGH) (N.K.BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:- 10.03.2021 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA NO.-8218/DEL/2019 14 DRAFT DICTATED 10.02.2021 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.02.2021 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON .02.2021 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE