Sh. Manjit Singh, Hoshiarpur V. DCIT, (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

ITA 867/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9669 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Residential status; Additional evidence; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

! , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 867/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI MANJIT SINGH, VILLAGE BHOOLPUR, PO-MAINI, TEHSIL DASUYA, HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB 144302 VS. ! THE DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH ' # ./ PAN NO: EBIPS3019C '$/ APPELLANT &' '$ / RESPONDENT ()*+ /ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE *+ / REVENUE BY : SH. AMIT SHUKLA, SR.DR , -*) .# /DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2019 /0 *) .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12 . 2019 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS )- 43, NEW DELHI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, DASUYA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148 SPE CIALLY, WHEN ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 2 IT WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DAS UYA AND HOSHIARPUR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NRE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DASUYA AND HOSHIARPUR HAVING ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO FRAME TH E ASSESSMENT AND, LATERON, TRANSFERRED THE FILE TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH , WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER NOTIC E AS ISSUED U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT DASUYA AND, THU S, THERE WAS LACK OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DASUYA AND, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT AS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH IS NULL AND VOID . 3. THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148 AS GIVEN I N PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER IS CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE ONCE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AT DASUYA AND HOSHIARPUR HAVING REALIZED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AND TRANSFERRED THE FILE' TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, C HANDIGARH, HAVING THE PROPER JURISDICTION AND, AS SUCH, THE FI NDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT DASUYA HAS THE AREAWISE JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD THE JU RISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148, IS TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY VALID REASONING. 4. THAT THE FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 BY THE ITO, DASUYA ARE IN ORDER , IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AT ON E GIVEN POINT OF TIME ONLY ONE ASSESSING OFFICER COUL D HAVE THE JURISDICTION AND FAILED TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 89 TAXMAN N 0536. 6. THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE GIVING THE ABOVE FINDING HAV E FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, D CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH COULD NOT REBUT ANY OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE V ALID ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 3 JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, DASUYA. 7. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, AS FURNISHED DURING THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO TH E JUSTIFICATION OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES AS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM IN A SUMMARY MANN ER WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL, WHICH IS AGAINST THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT A S PER THE AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAS UYA THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 30.68 LACS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DASUYA, THEREFORE, ISSUED LET TER DATED 14.2.2012 TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE AFORESAID TRANSAC TIONS OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE DAT ED 31.10.2012 WAS ISSUED TO BE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE FINAN CIAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PNB BRANCH, TANDA , DISTRICT HOSHIARPUR DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT NONE OF THE AFOR ESAID NOTICES COULD BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, A LETTER D ATED 18.1.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOSHIARPUR ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS MADE OF AFORESAID AMOUNT ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 4 OF RS. 30.68 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE MAINTAINED WITH PNB, TANDA, DISTRICT HOSHIARPUR. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 9.2.2016 REPLIED TO THE AFORESAID LETTER TO ITO, HO SHIARPUR STATING THEREIN THAT HE WAS A NRI PERSON LIVING IN USA FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. THAT HE HAD A GOOD BUSINESS IN USA. THAT HIS FAMILY WAS RESIDING IN INDIA AND HE WAS SENDING MONEY TO HIS WIFE AND MOTH ER THROUGH WESTERN UNION REGULARLY. ALONG WITH THE SAID LETTER, THE AS SESSEE ALSO SENT HIS COPIES OF THE PAN CARD, PASSPORT, PERMANENT RESIDEN T (PR) CARD ETC. AND FURTHER CONFIRMED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA. THEREAFTER, THE ITO, HOSHIARPUR TRANSFERRED THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE TO INCOME TAX OFFICER, DASUYA VIDE LETTER DATED 15.2. 2016 STATING THEREIN THAT AS PER PAN CARD, ITO, DASUYA WAS VESTED WITH T HE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE ITO, DASUYA, THEREAFTER, VIDE LET TER DATED 3.3.2016 AGAIN CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING THE AFORESAID BANK TRANSACTIONS. IN REPLY TO THE SAID LETTER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HIS REPLY DATED 9.2.2016 TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS RESPE CT WHEREBY HE HAD GIVEN THE NECESSARY DETAILS. THEREAFTER, THE ITO DA SUYA ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 30.3.2016 STATING THAT HE HAD REASON TO BELI EVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREBY HE PROPOSED TO REOPEN / RE-ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY THROUGH HIS COUN SEL I.E. ADVOCATE SHRI SURINDER SINGH TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE ON 27.4.2016 STATING THAT HE WAS AN NRI PERSON LIVING IN USA FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS A ND THAT HE DID NOT ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 5 HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA. THAT HE WAS HAVI NG 25 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY, INCOME THEREFROM WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THEREAFTER, THE ITO DASUYA ISSUED NOTICE DATED 2.5.2016 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE R ETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS. ANOTHER LETTER DATED 18.5.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, DASUYA REQUESTING SHRI SURINDER SINGH ADVOCATE, AUT HORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS AN NRI AND PERMANENTLY RESIDIN G IN USA FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. SHRI SURINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE (COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE) FILED A LETTER DATED 27.5.2016 TO THE INCOME TAX OF FICER, DASUYA ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE PASSPORT, PAN NUMBER AND PR CARD OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI MAJIT SINGH, REFLECTING HIS PR STATUS IN USA. IN THE MEANTIME, A RETURN OF INCOME, AS CALLED FOR, WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I. E. 2009-10. WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE, ANOTHER LETT ER DATED 10.6.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO DASUYA TO THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND TO FURNISH THE NECES SARY DOCUMENTS, AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SUPPLIED THE NECESS ARY DETAILS ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PERMA NENT RESIDENT OF USA. THE DETAILS REGARDING THE PERIOD OF STAY TO TH E ASSESSEE IN USA WERE ALSO FURNISHED. ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 6 4. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DETAILS, THE ITO DASUY A VIDE LETTER DATED 3.8.2016 TRANSFERRED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO AD DITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (ADIT) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) STATING THEREIN THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF USA AND, THU S, WAS HAVING A NRI RESIDENTIAL STATUS, HENCE, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VESTED WITH ADIT (INTERNATIO NAL TAXATION). IT WAS FURTHER INFORMED THAT IT WAS A TIME BARRED CASE WHICH WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.12.2016. THEREAFTER, THE DCIT (IN TERNATIONAL TAXATION) NWR, CHANDIGARH PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASS ESSMENT IN QUESTION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE I N THE PROCEEDINGS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 EX-PARTE OF THE ASSESSEE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 30.68 LACS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. FURTHER SOME OTHER ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MA DE AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 38 ,82,580/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WH EREIN, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER F RAMED BY THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) ON THE GROUND OF VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AG REE WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, REJECTED THE LEGAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEREON REMAND RE PORT WAS CALLED ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 7 FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE MA IN AND FOREMOST GRIEVANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS CASE IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) ON THE GROUND OF NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT BY DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION). IT HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) O N THE BASIS OF THE BORROWED SATISFACTION OF THE ITO, DASUYA INSTEAD O F HIMSELF FORMING THE BELIEF REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. AS PER THE NARRATION OF EVENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, FIRSTLY, IN THE YEAR 2012, THE QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ITO DASUY A REGARDING THE AFORESAID DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 30.68 LACS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THEREAFTER THE ITO DASUYA REMAI NED SILENT FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE ITO HOSHIARPUR ISSUED Q UERIES VIDE LETTER DATED 18.2.2016 ABOUT THE SAME BANK TRANSACTIONS. T HE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 09.02.2016 INFORMED THE ITO HOSHIARP UR THAT HE WAS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN, FURTHER NECESSARY DETAILS LIK E COPIES OF PAN CARD, PASSPORT, PERMANENT RESIDENT CARD ETC. WERE ATTACHE D WITH THE SAID ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 8 LETTER. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAN DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE, ITO, HOSHIARPUR TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO ITO, DASUYA. TH E ITO, HOSHIARPUR DID NOT MAKE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE NON-RESIDENT STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ITO, DASUYA AND EVEN A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE ITO, DASUYA TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE, AGAIN DULY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN AND THAT THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS HIM DID NOT VEST WITH THE ITO, DASUYA. THEREAFTER, THE ITO, DASUYA AGAIN ISSUED L ETTER TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED, HE HIMSELF TRANSFERRED T HE CASE TO THE ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH FOR TAXATION. THEREAFTER, LD. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEITHER RECORDED ANY REASO NS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOR I SSUED ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) C ONTINUED PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE THESE WERE LEFT BY THE I TO, DASUYA. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SEQUENCE REVEALS THAT THE ITO DASUYA D ID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND, AS SUCH, THE NO TICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ITO, DASUYA BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION WAS N OT VALID. THOUGH, THE FACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON-RESIDENT IND IAN, WAS DULY MENTIONED TO THE ITO, HOSHIARPUR AND THE ENTIRE REC ORD ALONG WITH REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO, DASUYA, APA RT FROM THAT THE ITO DASUYA ALSO WAS INFORMED VIDE SEPARATE REPLIES, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF USA, ITO D ASUYA, CONTINUED TO PROCEED WITH THE RE-ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICES U /S 148 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 9 THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN NRI WAS VERY MUCH ON THE RECORD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITO DASUYA HAD NO JURI SDICTION TO INITIATE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER HE TRANSFERRED THE CASE T O ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) FULLY CONVINCED THAT HE HIMSELF HAD NO JU RISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ADMITTEDLY, NO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH TO THE ASSESS EE WAS ISSUED. SINCE THE ITO, DASUYA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE A SSESSMENT, HENCE, ANY NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM HAS NO LEGAL VALIDITY. SO FAR AS THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH IS CONCERNED, HE ADMITTEDLY DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE VERY REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NO TICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE COMPETENT JUR ISDICTION, IS BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 12. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ITO, DASUYA HAD TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIO N ), CHANDIGARH AND, HENCE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING OF FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 (4) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 10 DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF TH E LD. DR. FIRSTLY, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ITO, DAS UYA WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE SAME WERE VOID ABINITIO, HENCE , ANY TRANSFER OF SUCH VOID PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF COMPET ENT JURISDICTION DID NOT VALIDATE HIS ACTION AND THE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN O THERWISE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, ITO, DASUYA H IMSELF HAD NO JURISDICTION TO SUO MOTU TRANSFER THE CASE TO THE D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION). RATHER, THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 (1) OF THE ACT, CAN BE ORDERED BY THE C OMPETENT AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WAS NOT VALID AND THE SA ME IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.12.2019 SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! ' / SANJAY GARG) #$% / VICE PRESIDENT &' / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17.12.2019 .. 2*&)3454) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. &' '$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. , 6) / CIT 4. , 6) ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 47 &)8 , . 8 , 9:;< / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ;= - / GUARD FILE ITA NO. 867-CHD-2018- SHRI MANJIT SINGH, HOSHIARPUR 11 2 , / BY ORDER, > / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR