SHARDA EXPORTS,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

ITA 5643/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Sharda Exports against orders related to the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention revolves around the treatment of duty drawback and the application of Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had made adjustments to the assessee's income, which led to these appeals. The ITAT found that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and had not conducted a proper inquiry before invoking Section 263, which led to the setting aside of the order under this section. The ITAT also noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed one of the appeals as infructuous without adjudicating on the merits, which was not acceptable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473131 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cliks Finance Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, Gabriel India Ltd. vs. CIT, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Paville Projects (P) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Question of law; Capital expenditure; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 263; 13; 80IB; 80IA; 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

" ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 1 of 17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 5643/Del/2018 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Sharda Exports, B-96, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Vihar Farms, New Delhi-110061. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Meerut. PAN No: ABOFS0079G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 7618/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Sharda Exports, B-96, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Vihar Farms, New Delhi-110061. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001. PAN No: ABOFS0079G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA and Shri J.P. Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur, SR. DR Date of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2025 ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 2 of 17 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut vide order dated 10.07.2018 and 24.10.2017. These two appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.- 5643/Del/2018 “1. That under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut has erred in law as well as on merits in dismissing the appeal in infructuous, consequently erred in not adjudicating upon various grounds of appeal preferred before him, which he should had decided. 2. That, under the facts and circumstances, various observations made by the Ld.. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut in appeal order are unwanted & needs to be expunged. 3. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, amend, modify the grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal with the kind permission of the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 3 of 17 ITA No.7618/Del/2017 “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut has erred in Law and facts of the case by passing an erroneous order on the Duty Draw Back Issue which is fully discussed by the Ld. Assessing Officer with the Assessee firm. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut has erred in Law and facts of the case in not considering the various details, pleadings and written submissions made from time to time by the Assessee firm on the Duty Draw Back Issue. 3. That the several observation as made and inference as drawn by the Authorities below is untenable, incorrect, unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That the appellant may take any other Ground or Grounds at the time of hearing of Appeal with the kind permission of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. We take ITA No. 7618/Del/2017 as a lead case to adjudicate this appeal. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of hand tufted, hand knotted carpets, leather carpets and puffs. The assessee has e-filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 vide Ack No. 3767571413 declaring NIL. Subsequently, the assessee case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 01.09.2015 and which was duly served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 4 of 17 questionnaire was issued on 12.04.2016. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued form time to time. 3. Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 4. The Ld. AR expressed grievance in the submissions that the Ld. PCIT erroneously passed order on the duty draw back issue without considering various details, pleading and written submissions. 5. Bare perusal of the record shows that the PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 11.08.2017 by noticing and observing that in the manufacturing and trading account, the assessee has credited an amount of Rs. 4,31,74,962/- as duty draw back received by it during the year and the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 45,25,96,914/- u/s 80-IC of the Act, out of which deduction @ 75% was disallowed by the AO and addition of Rs. 33,94,47,685/- was made to the total income of the assessee. It was stated in the said notice that while calculating the net profit from the business and deductions u/s 80- IC, the amount of duty draw back was also included by the assesse in contravention of the provisions of the Act as the amount of duty draw ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 5 of 17 back was to be added to the total income separately after excluding it from the profit and loss account and net profit. The Ld. AO has not considered and examined the above mentioned issue. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that it is the wrong fact that the Ld. AO has not examined the issue of duty draw back and it is also placed on record that during assessment proceedings vide order sheet dated 18/11/2016, the issue as why 80-IC should be allowed was specifically raised and it was replied in detail during assessment proceedings vide letter dated 21.11.2016 and even in the impugned order the Ld. PCIT noticed this fact that this issue was before the Ld. AO. So, it is beyond the fact that the duty draw back issue was not raised in the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO and was not considered or examined. It was also submitted that the Ld. AO vide order sheet dated 21.11.2016, Shri Prakash Gupta, appeared and submitted the reply and documents were being examined and on that day the Ld. AO examined. 7. The Ld. AR also submitted that the principles laid down in the judgment, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 183 Taxman 349 ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 6 of 17 (SC), not applicable in this case because said judgment only upon section 80I, 80IA and 80IB and not on 801C and Section 80IC was not existing in statute that time because the judgment passed in the case of Liberty India (supra) is for A.Y. 2001-02 and 80IC inserted thereafter by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 01.04.2004. It is also submitted that sec. 80IA- regarding deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc and sec. 80IB- regarding deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings, whereas Sec. 80IC- regarding special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category states, so the scope and title of Sec. 80IA and 80IB is quite different from Sec. 80IC. 7.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cliks Finance Pvt. Ltd. [2012] (3) TMI 227 dated 01/03/2024 has held as under: “19. A bare reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 263 of the Act makes kit abundantly clear that the said provision lays down a two pronged test to exercise the revisional authority i.e., firstly, the assessment order must be erroneous and secondly, it must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Further, Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act delineates certain conditions and circumstances when the order passed by the AO can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 7 of 17 20. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act further stipulates that if an order is passed without making an enquiry or verification which should have been made, the same would bestow a revisional power upon the Commissioner. However, the said Clause or any other condition laid down in Explanation 2 does not warrant recording of the said enquiry or verification in its entirety in the assessment order. 21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the questionnaire dated 02.11.2004, which has been annexed and brought on record in the present appeal, would manifest that the AO had asked for the allowability of the claims with respect to the issues in question. Consequently, the respondent- assessee duly furnished explanations thereof vide replies dated 09.12.2004, 20.12.2004 and 06.01.2005. Thus, it is not a case where no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO with respect to the claims under consideration. However, this leads us to an ancillary question whether the mandate of law for invoking the powers under Section 263 of the Act includes the cases where either an adequate enquiry has not been made and the same has not been recorded in the order of assessment or the said authority is circumscribed to only consider the cases where no enquiry has been conducted at all. 22. Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009] SCC OnLine Del 4237], wherein, it was held that if the AO has not provided detailed reasons with respect to each and every item of deduction etc. in the assessment order, that by itself would not reflect a non-application of mind by the AO. It was further held that merely inadequacy of enquiry would not confer the power of revision under Section 263 of the Act of the Act on the Commissioner. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- \"17. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 8 of 17 question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between \"lack of inquiry\" and \"inadequate inquiry. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of \"lack of inquiry\" that such a course of action would be open, In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) …… 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010 SCC OnLine Del 838), wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act would fall in the category of Commissioner having a different opinion. Paragraph 8 of the said decision reads as under.- \"8. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such application of mind is discernible from the record, the proceedings under section 263 would fall into the area of the Commissioner having a different opinion. We are of the view that the findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of \"lack of inquiry\" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180): \"that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.\" 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised during the course of scrutiny which was satisfactorily answered by the assessee but did not get reflected in the assessment order, would not by itself lead to a conclusion that there was no enquiry with respect to transactions carried out by the assessee. 25. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., enunciates the meaning and intont-of the ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 9 of 17 phrase \"prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue\", in the following words:- \"8. The phrase \"prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue\" is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss 2024 (3) TMI 157-HC-Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Delhi Versus Mis Clex Finance India of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain ((1957) 31 ITR 87 (Cal)), the High Court of Karnataka in CII v. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)), the 3/21/24, 6:32 PM High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)) and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh ((1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT ((1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting \"prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue\". The High Court held: \"In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue Administration.\" In our view this interpretation is too narrow to merit acceptance. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10. The phrase \"prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue\" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 10 of 17 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT ((1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)) and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 3 SCC 482: 1973 SCC (Tax) 318: (1973) 88 ITR 323J.)\" [Emphasis supplied) 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371), while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- \"27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). It is true that in the said decision and on interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act. 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy 28 2024 (3) TMI 157-HC-Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Delhi Versus M/s Clix Finance India enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient case that the CIT has exercised the power in accordance with law. Rather, in our considered opinion, the facts of the case do not indicate that the twin conditions contained in Section 263 of the Act are fulfilled in its letter and spirit.\" 8. It was also submitted that it was crystal clear that Ld. AO fully examined the legal and factual position regarding issue of duty draw back in the assessee’s case and after perusal of all the documents were submitted by the assessee, the Ld. AO being very much aware ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 11 of 17 of the issue and, after applying his mind by raising proper query passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and since that order has been passed after fully examination, it cannot be termed that the Ld. AO has not examined the issue of duty draw back and Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction for taking any action u/s 263 of the Act. 9. Invoking the provision u/s 263 of the Act, it is necessary to establish the twin conditions i.e., firstly, order in question must be erroneous and secondly it must be prejudice to the interest of the Revenue and fulfillment of about twin conditions is mandatory prior to invoked power u/s 263 of the Act and it is also relevant here that the Ld. PCIT while invoking the power u/s 263 of the Act, supposed to enquire into or examine the matter before reaching any conclusion. 10. The relevant part of the impugned order of PCIT is reproduced as under: “5.4. It is incumbent on the officer to investigate the facts stated 'in the return. when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent and the word 'erroneous\" in section 263 includes failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. 6. Thus, after careful consideration of assessee's submissions filed during the proceedings u's 263 vis-a-vis the records, it has been ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 12 of 17 established that the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was passed by the AO without correctly applying the provisions of the I.T. Act. 1961 which renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore. assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the DCIT. Circle-2. Meerut is set aside with the directions to examine the above issue aspect involved in the case properly after detailed enquiry and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessce. After examination and enquiries he will take appropriate action in the light of relevant provisions and rules and shall pass an assessment order de novo as per law.” 11. Bare perusal of the material available on record, with regard and also in the light of the aforesaid well established principle of law, lead us to draw inference that the issue which was before the Ld. AO regarding duty draw back was properly examined by the Ld. AO and decided in favour of the assessee and Ld. PCT has not taken any enquiry as required by law or site any plausible or cogent reason to reach conclusion that the impugned assessment order was erroneous and prejudice to interest of Revenue and instead of enquiry himself, the Ld. PCIT observe that it was incumbent to the officer to investigate the matter stated in the return and only on this basis the Ld. PCIT directed to examine the issue and send back to the Ld. AO. Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act, does not give unfettered power to Ld. PCIT to revise each and every order to examine the issue which is already been properly examined by the Ld. AO. So, ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 13 of 17 impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT void ab initio and beyond the jurisdiction and liable to set aside and quashed. ITA No.- 5643/Del/2018 12. The Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously dismissed this appeal as infructuous and not adjudicated upon various grounds of appeal preferred before him, which he ought to be decided. In this regard, relevant para no. 4, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 of impugned order is reproduced as under: “4 During the course of hearing, the appellant informed that order u/s.263 dtd.24.10.17 has been passed by Ld. Pr. CIT Meerut for A.Y.2014-15. A copy of the said order u/s.263 has been placed on record. On going through the order u/s.263 dtd.24.10.17, I noticed the findings in Para-6 of the said order as under:- \"Thus, after careful consideration of assessee's submissions filed during the proceedings u/s.263 vis-à-vis the records, it has been established that the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was passed by the AO without correctly applying the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 which renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut is set aside with the directions to examine the above issue aspect involved in the case properly after detailed enquiry and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. After examination and enquiries he will take appropriate action in the light of relevant provisions and rules and shall pass an assessment order de novo as per law.” 4.1 The Pr. CIT, u/s.263, vide Para-6 of the said order as abstracted above, has set aside the assessment order dtd.30.12.16. In the concluding portion of Para-6, Pr. CIT, also directed the A.O. to pass an assessment order de-novo as per law. ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 14 of 17 As per these findings in order u/s.263 passed, the impugned assessment order which is in appeal does not survive. Ld. Pr. CIT, directed the A.O. to frame fresh assessment order de-novo as per directions given in the order u/s.263. The appellant has placed on record assessment order u/s.263/143 (3) dtd.28.03.18 passed in pursuance to the directions given in order u/s.263 dtd.24.10.17. A copy of the said order has also been placed on my records. I find that in the said assessment order dtd.28.03.18, the A.O. determined the income of the appellant at Rs.35,02,41,426/- against the income assessed at Rs.33,94,47,685/-vide order of assessment which is in appeal before me. 4.2 From the above facts, it is quite evident that the impugned assessment order dtd.30.12.16 which is in appeal before me does not survive at all as on date on account of the same being set aside by Pr. CIT vide her order u/s.263 dtd.24.10.17. Thereafter, fresh assessment order has also been framed vide order dtd.28.03.18. In view of this factual matrix, the cause of action and adjudication at my end do not survive. Hence this appeal becomes in fructuous and stands disposed off accordingly. During appeal proceedings, the appellant inform me that against order u/s.263 dtd.24.10.17, an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT 'G' Bench has been filed on 19.12.17 bearing ITA No 7618 Del/2017 which is still to be fixed up for hearing. In view of this, in case the order u/s.263 stands quashed/set aside so as to that the subsequent assessment order dtd.28.03.18 will not survive as a result of order of Hon'ble ITAT, then in the interest of revenue, this appeal shall stand revived and will be re-fixed for hearing as per law. Moreover it is also informed that the Assessee firm has filed an appeal before me against the order u/s 263 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23rd June 2018 which will be heard and decided on merit separately. 5. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous.” 13. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT not discussed the merit of the case and stated that in case the order us 263 of the Act, in ITA No. 7618/Del/2017 is stand quashed and set aside, then this appeal still to be fixed up as per hearing as per law. ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 15 of 17 14. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the grounds of appeal of ITA No. 7618/Del/2017 deserved to be allowed as indicated above and in the appeal of assessee ITA No. 5643/Del/2018 and matter is deserves to be remit back to Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide afresh after affording meaningful and effective opportunity to assessee, as the Ld. CIT(A) not decided appeal of assessee on its merits. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee consequently in ITA No. 7618/Del/2017, is allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 5643/del/2018, is allowed for statistical purposes and matter is remitted back and restore in the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable and meaningful opportunity to assessee. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/02/2025 Pooja, Sr. PS ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 16 of 17 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA Nos.- 5643/Del/2018 and 7618/Del/2017 Sharda Exports Page 17 of 17 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal order 16.01.25, 14.02.25 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member 16.01.25, 14.02.2025, 20.02.25 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal order comes to the Sr. PS/PS 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS 7. Date on which the final Tribunal order is uploaded by the Sr.PS/PS on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal order 9 Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judisis Portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for endorsement of the order 12. Date of Dispatch of the order "