Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Pr. Cit- 8, New Delhi on 13 April, 2018
1 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'G' NEW DELHI
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 2999/DEL/2017 ( A.Y 2007-08)
Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT-8
3552, 105-106, Room No. 397,
Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Bazar C. R. Building, I. P. Estate
Delhi AAICS8635G New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.
Advocate & Sh. Ram Avtar
Bansal, Adv
Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Date of Hearing 08.03.2018
Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2018
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/03/2017 passed by Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2007-08 is not only prejudicial to the interest of Revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the Assessing Officer has failed to look into the seized material.
2. That the appraisal report, on the basis of which Assessing Officer had initiated the proceeding u/s 147 of the Act, was prepared only on the basis of seized material. Therefore, the Ld. CIT had erred in observing that the 2 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 Assessing Officer had not looked into the seized material and therefore, the provisions of section 263 are of the Act are attracted.
3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act in the present case on the ground that no proper inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer during the proceeding u/s 147 of the Act whereas the extensive inquiry had been made by the Assessing Officer.
4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has not considered that inadequate inquiry does not amount to lack of inquiry so as to attract the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act in view of even newly inserted provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act.
5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT himself had not examined as to whether there was any nexus between the cash deposited & cheques issued to the assessee so as to make the order passed by the Assessing Officer erroneous within the ambit of section 263; hence the directions given by the Pr. CIT to frame the fresh assessment is contrary to law.
6. That the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is not sustainable in law as it amounts to change of opinion.
7. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the powers u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of diary found from the possession of Shri S K Jain when it is time and again held by various Courts including the Supreme Court in CBI vs V C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that the entries recorded in Jain Diary were not admissible in evidence.
8. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in holding that the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India i.e. Common Cause vs Union of India is not applicable to the facts of present case.
9. That the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as no sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee to defend his case particularly when the assessee had requested for the personal hearing.
10. That the proceeding and the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 is perverse as it is based on general observation and not specific to the facts of the case.
11. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act on surmises and conjectures and therefore is liable to be set aside.3 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017
12. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds during the hearing of the appeal."
3. The return of income declaring income of Rs.21,600/- was filed on 19.10.2007. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was reopened u/s 148 with the prior approval of the CIT and notice u/s 148 dated 25.03.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee vide letter dated 09.06.2014 requested to treat the return already filed u/s 139 (1) be treated as filed in response to notice u/s 148. The reasons recorded in the case were provided to the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issue and served upon the assessee. In response, the Chartered Accountant and authorized representative of assessee attended assessment proceedings from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer examined the same as mentioned in the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015 and accepted the returned income of the assessee at Rs.21,600/-. During the course of the review of assessment work of some of the charges, the Principle CIT-8, New Delhi, noticed that though the assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the allegation of accommodation entry taken from S K Jain Group of concerns who were searched on 14.09.2010 by the investigation wing of the income tax department, some of the Assessing Officers did not examine the seized material in the form of cash book and the books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of Shri S K Jain during the course of search. A show cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 19.01.2017. The Pr. CIT vide order dated 23.03.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the Assessing Officer has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order was set aside with a direction to the AO to examine the seized material and confront the same to the assessee. The Assessing Officer was further directed 4 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 to examine the reasons for transferring such shares, if any, at a nominal rate to the directors or their relatives or the concerns in which the assessee company is interested and pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Pr. CIT further held that if after verification of the seized material and the explanation regarding the transfer of shares in the name of the directors or their relatives or the concerns in which the directors are interested, it is found by the Assessing Officer that there is nexus between the cash deposits and the cheques issued by the group companies of S K Jain or no valid explanation is given for the transfer of shares at lower price in the name of directors, relatives and the concerns in which the assessee company is interested, then the same may be considered as an accommodation entry and taxed accordingly as per provisions of the Income Tax Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the order u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee is before us.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that in respect of share capital for which the shares were allotted by the assessee company, the assessee filed the following documents which included the documents of all the 04 companies from whom the share application money was received :
(i) Company master data from ROC website,
(ii) share application form,
iii) Board resolution authorizing the share application,
iv) Confirmation regarding receipt of sharers,
v) Confirmation from the company,
vi) Memorandum and AOA of the applicant company,
vii) Copy of ITR return acknowledgment,
viii) Copy of audited Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2006
ix) Copy of bank statement reflecting the amount of share application
x) Affidavit from the then director of the company
xi) Copy of the cheque received for share application.
The Ld. AR further submitted that apart from these details, the Assessing Officer also made independent inquiry by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the 5 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 Income Tax Act to the share applicant companies. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer made further inquiry to his satisfaction by summoning the officers of the shareholder companies (investor companies) u/s131 of the Income Tax Act and recorded the statement of the representative / director of such companies who also submitted various documents about their identity as well as relating to the financials of the investor companies on 24.03.2015 and 26.03.2015. The statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer in the presence of income tax inspector. The Ld. AR further submitted that after making proper inquiries and after satisfying himself about the share capital and share applicant companies, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment order on 31.03.2015 at an income as declared by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that thereafter, surprisingly, assessee received a show cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017, requiring the assessee to explain as to why the re-assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2015 for AY 2007-08 be not set aside as the same is not only erroneous to the extent that the Assessing Officer had not examined the seized material (pertaining to the assessee company) in the case of S K Jain group of cases but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer had failed to tax the same amount of Rs. 20 lakh as unexplained credits in the books of assessee. Since apparently the amount of Rs. 20 lakh received from M/s Hillridge Investments Ltd. M/s Vogue Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd., M/s Pitambra Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pelicon Finance & Leasing Ltd. is an accommodation entry taken in lieu of cash of Rs. 20 lakh given by the assessee as the same cheque numbers from the same bank as mentioned in the notice were found credited in the bank account of assessee. The Pr. CIT also enclosed copies of seized material relating to the assessee, to the said notice. The Ld. AR further submitted that a detailed reply was filed by the assessee to this show-cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, pointing out that the Assessing Officer had made a detailed inquiry including inquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act and had also recorded the statements of representative /directors of such share applicant companies from whom the 6 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 share application money was received by the assessee. It was only after making proper inquiries and after satisfying himself that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act on 31.03.2015. Assessee also relied upon certain case laws and requested that the proceeding initiated u/s 263 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice. Assessee also requested for the personal hearing if the Pr. CIT was still not satisfied with the submissions put forth by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that however without affording any opportunity to the assessee, the Pr. CIT passed an order u/s 263 of the Act, observing that the reassessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without making proper verifications and inquiries and therefore, the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was not only prejudicial to the interest of revenue but also erroneous in so far as the Assessing Officer had failed to look into the seized material. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In fact the jurisdiction has been invoked by the Pr. CIT for making roving and fishing inquiry. The Ld. AR further submitted that in-fact during the re- assessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has made a specific query in respect of accommodation entries from 04 companies which had been duly replied by the assessee furnishing various documents. It was only after satisfying himself that the Assessing Officer had framed the re- assessment order. Therefore, now to invoke powers u/s 263 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion on the same set of facts which is not permissible in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Pr. CIT has erred in observing that the Assessing Officer had not looked into the seized material he had merely looked into the appraisal report forwarded by the investigation wing. The Pr. CIT has ignored a material fact that the appraisal report had been made by the investigation wing on the basis/of seized material only. Further as stated by the Pr. CIT himself on page 6 & 7 of the order u/s 263 of the Act, the appraisal report had summarized the details of beneficiaries and the shell companies along with the details of cheques issued as per the seized material in one of the annexures in the format as reflected a page 7 of the 7 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 order. This chart revealed the name of the mediator also. The details incorporated in various annexures were tabulated in the appraisal report. Accordingly, the observation of Pr. CIT that the Assessing Officer had not looked into the seized material is incorrect on the face of record. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Pr. CIT has misdirected himself in ignoring the material fact & that all possible inquiries had been made by the Assessing Officer during the re-assessment proceeding. A specific query had been made by the Assessing Officer which had been duly replied with by the assessee along with various evidences as stated in the preceding paras. Assessing Officer had also made independent inquiries by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act which had been duly complied by the 04 share applicant companies. Even summons u/s 131 had been issued by the Assessing Officer in response to which representatives/ directors of the shareholder companies were appeared and their statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer in the presence of income tax inspector. Their identity and creditworthiness was examined by the Assessing Officer and genuineness of the transactions were also examined. In such circumstances to invoke the powers u/s 263 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion. Thereof, no error of law or fact in the assessment order which can be revised by the Pr. CIT by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had inquired and considered all the aspects of the matter, he had examined and verified all the documents furnished by the assessee and after satisfying himself after making inquiry u/s 133(6) and 131 of the Act that he had framed the assessment order, allowing share capital in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that this is not the case where no inquiry had been made by the Assessing Officer. The grievance of the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is that no proper inquiry had been made by the Assessing Officer in respected of the issues stated in the notice. There is a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The former confer power on the Pr. CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 but the later not. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial 8 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 Company Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC) wherein it is held that the Commissioner has to satisfy himself of both the conditions, order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is also held that the provisions cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. The phrase "prejudicial to the interest of 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 of tax. The said phrase 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 interest of 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 interest of revenue unless the view taken by the Income -Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In the present case, after considering all the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has taken a view which is permissible in law and therefore, the Pr. CIT cannot substitute his own view treating the view taken by the Assessing Officer as erroneous. It is the lack of inquiry on the part of Assessing Officer which confers jurisdiction the Pr. CIT to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Following cases are relied upon:
(1) CIT vs Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del)
(2) ITO vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del)
(3) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation ITA No.267/2013 decided on 09.07.2013 (4) CIT Delhi-V vs New Delhi Television 39 Taxmann.com 135 (Del) (5) CIT vs Galileo India (P) Ltd. 41 Taxmann.com 34 (Del) The Ld. AR further submitted that where the Assessing Officer had made a query which had been duly explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of 9 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 Assessing Officer then no revision is permissible by the CIT on the ground that there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order which lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 212 Taxmann 184 (Del), 1 ITR - OL 526 (Del) and CIT vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). As regards the scope and ambit of expression "erroneous", the Hon'ble Delhi Court relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, wherein, after discussing the dictionary meaning of the term "erroneous" have held that it is clear that an order cannot be termed as an "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance with law. The Ld. AR submitted that these principles are again reiterated by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Technic UK Ltd. vs DIT International Taxation in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 311 (Del) and Pri. CIT vs Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.637 of 2007 decided on 21.08.2017) as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 234 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that it is clear from the above that where two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view and the Commissioner again revised the said order on the ground that he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, in such circumstances the assessment order cannot be treated as an order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reason is simple. While exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, the Commissioner is not sitting in appeal. This has been eloquently explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. In the present case, the facts on record are evident that the Assessing Officer had made the query to which assessee had filed the detailed reply producing various evidences. The Assessing Officer had made the intensive inquiry by issuing notices to the creditors / share applicants u/s 133(6) of the Act and had recorded the statements of representatives / directors of the share applicant companies. It is only after satisfying himself that the Assessing Officer had accepted the stand of the assessee. Hence, the CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act merely on the 10 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 ground that the Assessing Officer had not looked into the seized material particularly when in the appraisal report (which was the basis for issuing notice u/s 147) the details of seized material was depicted in the tabular form.
Moreover, Pr. CIT has not arrived at a definite conclusion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. Rather he has given direction to the Assessing Officer to make roving and fishing inquiry of general nature, specially when the share applicant companies are still holding the shares and have not sold the-same-to the Directors Order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 reflects that the Pr. CIT is prejudiced by the general facts existing in the market which are not the facts in the present case. Hence, the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The Ld. AR further submits that Section 133(6) was also issued. The Ld. AR submitted that the statement of Directors was recorded as Section 131 notice was issued and Directors appeared before the Assessing Officer.
6. The Ld. DR submitted that Pr. CIT rightly passed order u/s 263 of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration the material seized during the search in the case of Sh. S. K. Jain. The Ld. DR submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No. 2396/2017 order dated 29.11.2017). The Ld. DR also relied upon following decision of the various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal:
(a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)
(b) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.)
(c) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC)
(d) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 11 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 As regards the issue of Notice u/s 143(2) and reopening of cases u/s 147 of the Act, the Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions:
(a) CIT vs. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. 337 ITR 399 (Del)
(b) Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO (2014) 227 Taxman 374 (SC)
(c) Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 58 (Guj.)
(d) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. 2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT
(e) PCIT vs. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Del)
7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. We have taken congnizance of all the contentions of the Ld. AR. When we asked the specific query about whether the present directors of those companies were called for and given a statement, the Ld. AR submitted that most of the companies whom shares have been given the current directors were not given statements but the past directors have given statements. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR will not be applicable in the present case as the facts in the present case are different. In fact the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC) wherein it is held that the Commissioner has to satisfy himself of both the conditions, order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Both these test have been seen by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the present case and aptly applies in the present case. It is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. Thus, the Pri. CIT has looked into the aspect of the Assessment Order in the present case to the extent of erroneous and thus, Section 263 of the Act is attracted in the present case. Section 263 of the Act is not invoked simply for correcting mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer in the present case. It can be observed 12 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 that the Pr. CIT has considered all the contentions of the assessee and thereafter rightly come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the seized material. The Pr. CIT held as under vide order dated 23.03.2017 passed under Section 263 of the Act:
"11. There is another point of not making proper enquiry in this case. Subsequent to issue of shares to the concerns of SK Jain Group, most of the beneficiary companies got the shares transferred at a nominal rate in the name of their directors or their relatives originally issued to such shell companies. Even though, the shares were issued at a premium, in most of the cases such shares were transferred within one or two years in the name of directors of the beneficiary company or to the concerns in which such directors were interested, at very nominal price. The AO did not make any enquiry whatsoever on this aspect. He ought to have asked the beneficiary company as to why the shares issued at premium were transferred by the investor companies (shell companies) to the directors or their relatives or concerns of the beneficiary company at a very discounted price. What was the face value of the shares at the time of the allotment and transfer. What happened suddenly that the value of such shares went down ranging from 50% to 90%. This unusual even had taken place in most of the cases before the AOs completed the assessment proceedings during financial year 2014-15 but the AO did not make any enquiry whatsoever on this aspect. In this case, the assessee did not furnish the details of shares transferred from the above mentioned companies of SK Jain Group to other persons despite my specific query in the show cause notice."
.....
"16. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the reassessment order passed by the AO on 31/3/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08, is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the AO has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order is set aside with a direction to the AO to examine the seized material and confront the same to the assessee. The AO would also examine the reason for transferring such shares, if any, at a nominal rate to the directors or their relatives or the concerns in which the assessee company is interested and pass a speaking order after affording on opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If after verification of the 13 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 seized martial an the explanation regarding t he transfer of shares in the name of the directors or their relatives or the concerns in which the directors are interested, it is found by the AO that there is nexus between the cash deposits and the cheques issued by the group companies of SK Jain or no valid explanation is given for the transfer of shares at lower price in the name of directors, relatives and the concerns in which the assessee company is interested, then the same may be considered as an accommodation entry and taxed accordingly as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act."
Thus, it can be seen that the Pr. CIT has properly invoked the provisions of Section 263 and there is no procedural lapse on the part of the Pr. CIT. In fact, the Assessing Officer though reopened the assessment proceedings did not made any inquiry and there is no mention of the same in the Assessment Order itself which proves that the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and there is loss of revenue. The Pr. CIT after issuing the Show Cause Notice u/s 263 of the Act given ample opportunity to the Assessee for explanation and dealt with the reply/details filed by the assessee in proper manner. Thus, proper opportunity was given by the Pr. CIT to the assessee during the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No. 2396/2017 order dated 29.11.2017). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"In all these cases, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.14 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed."
Thus, in the present case the Assessing Officer has though rightly re-opened the Assessment Proceedings has not properly adjudicated the issue for re- opening therefore, the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and passed the order. Therefore, the Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
8. In result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 16/04/2018
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
15 ITA No. 2999/Del/2017
Date
1. Draft dictated on 12/03/2018 PS
2. Draft placed before author 12/03/2018 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before .2017 JM/AM
the second member
4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM
Second Member.
5. Approved Draft comes to the PS/PS
Sr.PS/PS 16.04.2018
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 16.04.2018 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.