Sh. Praveen Kumar KApoor, Faridabad V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITSSA 15/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3644 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Document seized

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 15/DEL/2008 ( BLOCK PERIOD : 01/04/1986 TILL 14 /08/ 1996 ) SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR, 515, SECTOR - 14, FARIDABAD PAN: ABMPK7969F VS. THE ACIT, RANGE - II, FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV REVENUE BY: SMT PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 14/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 / 02 / 201 8 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 28/12/2007 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE II, FARIDABAD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29/8/1997 AT THE INCOME OF RS. 1,31, 79, 986/ - FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/86 TILL 14/08/1996 IN CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED BY T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 14/08/1996 . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH WHO VIED ORDER DATED 16/11/2006 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE - ADJUDICATE AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. CON SEQUENT TO THAT THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 911800/ . THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING 13 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: - SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 2 1. TH AT THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITIES TO BE ASSESSED OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 911800/ - AND ACCORDINGLY DENIES HIS LIABILITIES TO PAY TAX DEMANDED THEREON. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 324974/ - ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT NO. 5 SEIZED FROM MR. ANIL JINDAL AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME VIDES PARA NO. 4.1 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8317/ - AS PER UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT VIDES PARA NO. 5.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3965/ - ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT NO. 1 PAGE 56 AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME VIDE PARA NO. 5.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 965264/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF PLOT NO. B - 532, NEHRU GROUND, FARIDABAD AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT VIDE PARA NO. 5.4 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. 6. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10040/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES VIDE PARA NO. 5.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. THAT HAV ING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN TREATING THE DISCLOSED INCOMES OF HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY HER IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 100000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE S WIFE VIDE PARA NO. 6. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 9. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION AN ADDITION OF RS. 369240/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND TUITION IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE VIDE PARA NO. 7.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 10. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CASE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO IS BAD IN LAW BEING BARRED BY L IMITATION. 11. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 12. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 3 FOLLOWING TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY. 13. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 3, GROUND NO. 4, GROUND NO. 6 AND GROUND NOS. 10 TO 13. IN VIEW OF THIS , THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. THIS LEAVES US WITH GROUND NO. 2, 5, 7, 8 AND 9 WHICH ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER. 4. THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 324974/ MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT NO. 5 SEIZED FROM MR ANIL JINDAL AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOCUMENT NO. 5 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENT OF SHRI ANIL JINDAL IN THE FORM OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CASHBOOK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/7/1995 TO 31/3/19 96 CONTAINING ENTRIES OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AND WITHDRAWALS BY MR J K GARG AND SH. PK KAPOOR. SH. NIL JINDAL DENIED THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THESE DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ANALYSE D THE DOCUMENTS WHI CH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO HIM THE BANK ENTRIES AS PER THIS DOCUMENT BELONG TO M / S KAPOOR AND COMPANY AND ARE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT SHOWS WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER IT IS A COMMON CASHBOOK WHICH INVOLVES THE WITHDRAWALS BY SEVERAL PERSONS AND THEREFORE HE THOUGHT IT FIT TO MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. FROM THE DOCUMENT SEIZED THE LD. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN RS. 175900/ AND HAD TAKEN OUT RS. 50,000 / - OUT OF THESE FUNDS AS PER THE DOCUMENT AND REPAID LOAN FOR HIS HOUSE IN THE NAME OF H IS WIFE. A FURTHER SUM OF RS. 1 81969/ WAS WITH RESPECT TO CAR PURCHASE D AND THE CASH BALANCE OF RS. 9 005/ . FURTHER, THERE WERE SOME DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IS FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK. THEREFOR E OUT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 4 THE TOTAL SUM OF RS. 4 16874/ LD . AO GRANTED DEDUCTION OF RS. 9 1900/ OUT OF THE RECEIPT AND WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND MADE AN ADDITION ONLY OF RS. 3 24974/ . 5. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 158 BC FOR MATERIAL WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PC IT VS. SUBHASH KHATTAR IN ITA NO. 60/2007 DATED 25/7/2017. 6. THE LD DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN CASE OF SHRI JK GARG VS. ADDL. CIT IT(SS)A NO. 18/DEL/2008 DATED 12.02.2018 VIDE PARA NO. 10 AS UNDER: - 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE PCIT VS. SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE ANYTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND WHEN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OF SOMEBODY ELSE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR JINDAL . IN SUCH CASE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS , AS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY US ON THE SAME DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SAME SEARCH , WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 95264/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF PLOT NO. B - 532, NEHRU GARDEN, FARIDABAD. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DEPARTMENT VALUER HAS SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT R S. 173929/ - AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS. 68000/ - AND FURTHER, RS. 95264/ - HAS BEEN SPENT BY THE TENANT AND THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE TOTAL COST IS SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 5 RS. 163264/ - . HENCE, SUM OF RS. 95264/ - IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUATION OF THE DVO AND INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 68000/ - . 10. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 95264/ - HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTED BY TENANT M/S. MANU FINLEASE LTD. EVEN OTHERWISE HE SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. 11. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS. THE FACT SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INVESTMENT OF RS. 68000/ - BY HIMSELF AND RS. 95264/ - BY TENANT AND THUS, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IN THE PROPERTY IS RS. 163264/ - . THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA NO. 5.4 HAS STATED THAT NO CONTRARY MATERI AL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THIS RESPECTFULLY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT SHRI SUBHASH KHATTAR (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO DELETE THE ABOVE ADDITION. EVEN OTHERWISE IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED THAT RS. 95264/ - WERE INVESTED BY THE TENANT AND SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, EVEN OTHERWISE THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF DISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 8 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF PURCHASE PRICE OF PLOT WITH CIRCLE RATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE PURCHA SED A PLOT OF LAND IN HER NAME AT RS. 2 LAC. THE CIRCLE PRICE WAS FOUND TO BE 3 LACS AND THEREFORE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC. FURTHER VIDE GROUND NO. 9 OF THE APPEAL AN ADDITION OF RS. 369240/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESS EE FROM SALARY AND TUITION FEE IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, VIDE THESE THREE GROUNDS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE INCOME BELONGS OT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE T HE WIFE OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 6 THE ASSESSEE BEING INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO THE INCOME TAX. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE OF PLOT BETWEEN THE CIRCLE RATE AND THE PURCHASE PRICE THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF M/S. RITU GARG IN CASE OF SAME SEARCH. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS OWNED THE TRANSACTIONS IN HER NAME AND HER RETURN OF INCOME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 230 TO 246 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITH THESE THREE GROUNDS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SHE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAS EARNED INCOME OF SALARY ETC. THEREFORE, THE LD AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT SANGEETA KAPOOR WAS EXAMINED WH ERE THE LD AO NOTED THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT HER INCOME ETC. FROM THE STATEMENT WHICH IS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANNEXURE 1 THE LD AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHE IS A DUMMY ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY INCOME OF HER OWN. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC ARE LOOKED INTO BY HER HUSBAND AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PLOT PURCHASED AS WELL AS THE OTHER INCOME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 369240/ - WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE H AVE PERUSED THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SMT. SANGEETA KAPOOR ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 174 TO 182 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE COMPREHENSIVE READING OF THE STATEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT SHE WAS HAVING SOME KNOWLEDGE OF AFFAIRS OF HER INCOME TAX RETURN. FURTHER, THE PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HER IN HER OWN WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD AO. HE ALSO DID NOT CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE FUNDS FROM WHICH SHE HAS PURCHASED THE PLOT OF LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO HER. FURTHER, IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO EVIDENCES WERE FOUND WHICH SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT BEYOND THE RECORDED SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 7 PRICE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE BALANCE SHEETS AND THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. IN HER RETURN OF INCOME THOUGH SHE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY SHE ALSO HAS FURNISHED HER BALANCE SHEET. ON LOOKING AT THE BALANCE SHEET IT IS APPARENT THAT SHE HAS VARIOUS LOANS AND DEPOSITS WITH THE BANKS AND OTHER ASSETS . IT IS NOT DENIED BY THE LD AO THAT SHE IS FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SALARY INCOME SHOWN BY HER IN HER RETURN OF INCOME IS UNSUBSTANTIATED. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING IN APPRAISAL REPORT ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THE NAME OF THE CONCERN M/S. SWAMI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD FROM WHICH SHE IS DRAWING SALARY. IN VIEW OF OVERWHELMING FACTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE NOT REJECTED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC AND RS. 369240/ - CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 7 TO 9 ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/02/2018 . - S D / - - S D / - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12/02/2018 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR VS. ACIT, IT(SS) A NO.15/DEL/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1986 TILL 14TH AUGUST 1996) PAGE | 8 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.