Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Hemant Mittal, Hisar vs Ito Ward-2, Hisar on 27 May, 2020
Page |1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
[DELHI BENCH 'SMC' (2)", NEW DELHI]
BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5161/Del/2019
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Shri Hemant Mittal vs The Income Tax Officer
520/1 Priti Nagar Ward -2
Hissar Hissar
Haryana Haryana
.
PAN : ARLMP1022E
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate
Revenue by Shri R . K. Gupta Sr DR
Date of online hearing: 27/05/2020
Date of Pronouncement: 27/05/2020
ORDER
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:
1. This appeal is heard on virtual mode. Ld. counsel and ld. DR both argued their case from their respective premises. They addressed and assisted us in deciding the dispute through telecommunication medium.
5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |2
2. Mr. Hemant Mittal, individual, files this appeal against the order of the Ld. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HISSAR [TheLd. CIT (A)] dated 25th of March 2019 raising several grounds of appeals.
a. Ground number [1] of the appeal of the assessee is challenging the action u/s147 of The Income Tax Act. b. Ground number [2] of the appeal of the assessee challenges the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO for the reason that notice u/s147 of the income tax act was issued by the ITO Ward - 5, Hissar and the order was passed by the Ld. income tax officer Ward - 2 Hissar.
c. Ground number [3] challenges the addition of 6 94000/- with respect to the loan obtained by the assesse from five different persons added by the ld. AO.
d. Ground number [4] challenges the addition on account of 2 lakhs deposited by the assessee in cash in his bank account, which were added by the Ld. assessing officer, has unexplained credit u/s68 of the income tax act.
e. Ground number [5] of the appeal challenges the action of revenue in making an addition of 88,000 on account of alleged love profit.
f. Ground number [6] of the appeal relates to the charging of interest u/s234A & 234B.
3. Assessee also moved an application for admission of the additional ground as per letter dated 22 May 2020. The additional grounds raised under
(i) That the notice u/s143 (2) of the act dated 9/11/2016 is invalid as the same was issued and served on the spot on the date of filing of return of income and therefore the 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |3 impugned order of assessment dated 28/12/2016 u/s147/143 (3) of the act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as such.
(ii) That addition made and disputed in the present appeal on account of alleged unexplained cash credit of u/s 68 of the act and alleged low net profit are beyond the scope of assessment as determined in the reasons recorded u/s148 (2) of the act and therefore illegal and untenable
4. Assessee submitted that additional ground number [1] raised speaks that assessment framed is without jurisdiction because as evident from the order of the assessment that statutory notice u/s143 (2) of the act was issued on the date of filing of the return of income. Assessee relied upon the decision of honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus Society for worldwide Interbank financial telecommunication [323 ITR 249] and several other decisions of SMC benches. The assessee submits that the ground number [2]is being raised as it is evident from the order of assessment that the additions are beyond the scope of present proceedings u/s147 read with section 143 (3) of the act as they had to be confined to the reasons recorded u/s147 of the act. It is submitted that assessee is entitled to raise legal ground at any stage of the proceedingsor in appeal before the honourable High Court. The honourable Supreme Court in case of National thermal Power Corporation Ltd versus CIT (229 ITR 383) has held that where all the material facts are on record and additional ground raised is purely legal in nature, such ground should be admitted at any stage of the proceedings. The assessee further relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Varas International private limited (284 ITR 80) wherein it has been held that the question of law can be raised even if not taken before the 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |4 lower authorities. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee may be permitted to argue the aforesaid additional ground in support of its contention and that the instant assessment framed is without jurisdiction.
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. authorized representative Mr. Gautam Jain, Advocatereiterated above submission and stated that additional grounds may be admitted as those grounds go to the root of matter and are legal in nature. He further submitted that there are no fresh facts required to be investigated. Therefore,it should be admitted.
3. Ld. departmental representative objected to it and stated that these are after thoughts.
4. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused application of assessee for admission of additional grounds. We find that additional grounds raised go to the root of the matter, are legal in nature, no fresh facts are required to be adjudicated, and therefore, deserves to be admitted. Therefore, we admit both additional grounds raised.
5. Briefly stated the facts of case shows that Ld. AO initiated action u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act on the basis of annual information return [AIR] information available on the ITD system that assessee has made cash deposit of 12,97,900/- in his savings bank account maintained with Indusind Bank during financial year 2009 - 10 relevant to assessment year 2010 - 11.Ld. AO also noted that assessee has not filed his return of income for relevant assessment year and therefore after recording reasons in this regard and after obtaining necessary approval, ITO Ward 5, Hissar issued notice u/s148 of the act on 14/3/2016. Subsequently the case was transferred to the present AO ITO Ward-2, Hissar. Notice u/s142 (1) of the Act was issued on 6/7/ 2016 asking assessee to file a return of income and furnish requisite information. It did not 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |5 evoke any response from assessee and therefore another notice was issued u/s142 (1) on 05/7/2016. In response to that, counsel of assessee requested for adjournment however, no compliance was made. As there was, no compliance on the part of assessee, ld. AO issued show cause notice u/s144 of The Act on 7/8/2016. In response to that assessee furnished his income tax return on 9/11/2016 declaring income of 86580/-. Thereafter on receipt of return of income, notice u/s143 (2)/142 (1) of the Act along withquestionnaire were issued on 9/11/2016 itself and served upon the counsel of the assessee on the spot.
5. Pursuant to that, relevant information was furnished by assessee.
Ld. AO noted that assessee has raised unsecured loan from five different persons amounting to 694000/-. Therefore, assessee was asked to prove genuineness of these unsecured loans along with the identity and creditworthiness of those lenders. Assessee furnished requisite details such as passbook of those lenders. The Ld. AO was not satisfied about the onus discharged by the assessee and also noted that all these creditors have the low bank balances speaks about the creditworthiness of those lenders. Further,on few occasions cash has been deposited. Further immediate after deposit of cash on such occasions cheques were issued in favour of assessee. Ld. AO noted that assessee has furnished such information in respect of lenders only on 23/12/2016. As the matter was time barring, it was not feasible to issue summons to lenders and examine them on this issue. Therefore,Ld. AO held that delay in submission of information is a strategy to avoid personal attendance of the creditors. Accordingly, he held that 6,94,000/- received in the shape of unsecured loan is in unaccounted income of the assessee. He added it to total income of assessee. Ld. AO further noted that from assessee's bank account statement that assessee has made a cash deposit of 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |6 2 lakhs on 29/05/2009. Assessee did not furnish any information and therefore it was also added to total income of assessee. The AO further computed total income of the assessee noting that assessee has purchased a hydraulic excavator machine on 30/05/2009 for which total receipt has been shown at Rs. 21,82,550/-. Assessee also claimed depreciation at rate of 30% on it. Therefore as per profit and loss account assessee declared that profit are 86567/- only which gives net profit ratio of 4% of the total receipt. He noted that rate that profit shown by the assessee is ridiculously low, though machine is run on rent, which is charged on hourly basis. He noted that assessee has opted for presumptive rate of taxation u/s44AD of The Income Tax Act. Ld. AO noted that, as assessee is not operating any goods carriage but a hydraulic excavator machine, it does not fall in the category of vehicle used in plying and transportation business. Therefore he applied provisions of section 44AD and estimated the profit at the rate of 8% of the total receipts amounting to 1,74,604/-. As assessee has declared a profit of 8 6576 only, balance addition of 88,000/- was made to total income of assessee. Consequently, total income of assessee was assessed at 10,68,580/- against returned income of 86,580/-. Assessment order was passedu/s147 read with section 143 (3) of the act on 20 April 2016.
6. Assessee aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO , assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) Hissar, dismissed it as per order on 25/3/2019. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with that order has preferred appeal before us.
7. Coming to the first additional ground raised by the assessee, which is that notice issued u/s143 (2) of the act dated 9/11/2016 is invalid. As per assessee,it was issued on the spot on the date of filing of return of income along with questionnaire. As per him, ld. 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |7 AO should have applied his mind before issue, so which cannot be applied if notices are issued on the spot on the same day. Therefore impugned order of assessment dated 28/12/2016 u/s147 read with section 143 (3) of the act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. Ld. authorized representative submitted a chronology of events. He submitted that issue under consideration is squarely covered by decision of the coordinate bench in SATISH KUMAR Versus ITO, WARD 2 (3) , FARIDABAD 2019 (3) TMI 436 - ITAT DELHI Dated:- 14-1-2019 - in ITA number 3586/del/2018 dated 14/1/2019 (SMC).Therein SMC tribunal, after considering the judgment of the honourable Delhi High Court in 323 ITR 249 quashed assessment, wherein that assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s148 of the act on 12 August 2015 and notice u/s143 (2) of the act was also issued on 12 August 2015. He further relied upon the decision inShri Ajay Sharma, Ghaziabad Versus The DCIT (Central Circle) , UttarPradesh2019 (3) TMI 571 Dated:- 5-3-2019 - He further relied upon the several other decision of the SMC benches i.e. MICRON ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4) , GHAZIABAD - 2018 (5) TMI 1018 - ITAT DELHI and SHRI HARSH BHATIA C/O. M/S. RRA TAXINDIA VERSUS THE I.T.O WARD-50 (3) NEW DELHI - 2017 (10) TMI 1313 - ITAT DELHI. Therefore, he stated that the assessment made may kindly be quashed as such.
8. The Ld. departmental representative vehemently objected to the above ground of appeal and submitted that assessee should have raised any objection before the assessing officer. He referred to the provisions of section 292BB and submitted that where the assessee has not raised any such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment the assessee precluded challenging the notice issued by the Ld. AO in any proceedings or 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |8 enquiry under this act. He submitted that assessee has not challenged it before the Ld. AO, thus, it is merely an afterthought.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of lower authorities. Admittedly, in this case assessee did not comply with the notice u/s148 of The Income Tax Act. However, subsequently, assessee filed his return of income on 9/1/2016vide acknowledgement number 709091116002527 with ITO Ward - 2, Hissar. Ld. AO noted at paragraph number 2 of assessment order that after receiving return, notice u/s143 (2)/ 142 (1) along with questionnaire was issued on 9/11/2016 itself for fixing hearing on 15/11/2016 and served upon the assessee's counsel on the spot. This action of the Ld. AO has been challenged by the assessee. It is that provisions of section 143 (2) provides that where the return has been furnished u/s139, or in response to a notice under subsection (1) of section 142 can be issued by AO, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that assessee has not understated the income or has not computed the excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner, serves on the assessee a notice requiring him on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the AO or to produce or cause to be produced before the AO any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return. Therefore, Moment return of income is filed the Ld. AO is required to apply his mind to ascertain whether it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that assessee a. has understated the income or b. has not computed excessive loss or c. has not under paid the tax then only he shall serve the notice to the assessee. Thereby it implies that the AO has to apply his mind before issuing notice 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar Page |9 u/s143 (2) of the act. Thus, now the issue arises that how much time ld. AO can take to apply his mind on the return of income. Obviously, there cannot be any standard parameter for the same. If the issue is straightforward, it may take seconds, and if the issue is complicated, law itself has given him time to issue such notices up to 6 months from the end of the AY in which return of income is filed. However, there is no minimum statutory time that must elapse before a notice under this section can be issued after assessee files return of income, has been fixed by legislature. Therefore, when even the lawmaker did not thought it proper to put any minimum time limit for assessing officer to issue notice after receipt of notice, if a minimum threshold is put, then it will amount to curtailing the powers of assessing officer. Obviously, he cannot issue the notice before the return of income is filed by the assessee. Such was the case before honourable Delhi high court in which assessment order was quashed and which is heavily relied up on by the ld. AR We will come to discuss that decision in a short while. Therefore, we are not inclined to put any minimum time limit for AO to make him wait for issue of notice u/s 143(2) after assessee files his return of income. If We do so, we are afraid, we are rewriting the law. However, if the assessing office is arbitrary in issuing notice or has exceeded his jurisdiction, then only, we are empowered and may come to the rescue of the assessee, otherwise not. We have our reason for that, which we will discuss later.
10. Provision of section 143(2) provides that "[(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 10 ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return:
Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]"
11. The most important is that before issue of Notice u/s 143 (2), he must apply his mind whether he "considersit necessary or expedient." Possibly, he can do so the moment, he goes through the return of income, or possibly, he may exhaust the full time allowed to him, i.e. six months from the end of the AY in which return is filed. Section 143 (2) contemplates making an assessment of the income of the assessee by issue of notice. The two important words used are 'necessary' and 'expedient'. the word expedient is more comprehensive and generally deals with the wider range of situations than 'necessary'. Circumstances warranting 'expedience" is incapable of putting in to a compass box; generally it would cover wide range of criteria for selection of cases such as scrutiny assessment. The word "necessary" is limited in its sphere compared to 'expedient "and is applicable generally in the cases where reassessment or any other mandatorily warranted assessments to be made.
12. Now the moot question that arises whether AO could have applied his mind on the return of income furnished by the assessee and "considered it 'necessary' to issue notice to the counsel of the 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 11 assessee on the same day at the same time and on the spot along with questionnaire, despite him having no information about the assessee except reasons recorded by him u/s 147 of the act.
13. There may be many situations, which can be visualized. Some of them illustratively arelike as follows.
14. First situation which can be visualized as was before the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Director Of Income Tax Versus Society Forward Interbank Financial Telecommunication reported in (2010) (323 ITR 249) (Del) where assessee filed its return of income and on the same date the notice was served upon the authorized representative of the assessee by hand when he came to file the return of income. However, the notice was bearing a date two days before the date of filing the return of income. Thus, the notice u/s 143(2) of the act was issued prior to filing of return of income by assessee. Honourable High court held that :-
"5. The only issue sought to be raised before us is with regard to the validity of the assessment proceedings. The admitted position is that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.03.2000 and the assessment was completed on 31.03.2000. The learned counsel for the appellant/revenue contended before us that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have returned findings of fact that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 23.03.2000, whereas the return of income was filed on 27.03.2000 and was served on the same date on the assessee."
.......
"8. We are of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 12 (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 23.03.2000 and since the return was filed on 27.03.2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed on the basis of the notice was also invalid and was consequently set aside. It is for the first time before us that the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notice, in fact, was issued on 27.03.2000 and not on 23.03.2000, the date, which is recorded on the notice itself. No such contention was raised before the Lower Appellate Authorities. Consequently, the said contention cannot be raised before us for the first time."
"9. However, even if we accept what the learned counsel for the appellant / revenue submits, it does not make the case any better for him. In para 3.4 of the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has stated that the return was filed by the assessee on 27.03.2000 and the notice under Section 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative of the assessee by hand when the Authorized Representative of the assessee came and filed return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned as 23.03.2000.
10. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the Authorized Representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicates that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. ..........
"11. The provisions of Section 143(2) make it clear that the notice can only be served after the Assessing Officer has examined the return filed by the assessee. Whereas what para 3.4 indicates is that when the assessee came to file the 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 13 return, the notice under Section 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative by hand. Thus, even if we take the statement of the Assessing Officer at face value, it would amount to gross violation of the scheme of Section 143 (2) of the said Act."
15. In those circumstances,Honourable Delhi High Court has held that notice can only be served after the AO has examined the return filed by the assessee. Honourable high court in facts quashed order only for the reason that notice was dated prior to the date of filing of return by assessee. We do not find anywhere in the order that there can be a rule that AO cannot issue notice u/s 143(2) of the act on the day on which he receives return of income. It would be too much to read in that decision which is not held. Further, that was not the case of reopened assessment but a fresh assessment. In that particular case, the concurrent lower authorities have held that when the assessee has filed its return of income on 27March 2000, the notice u/s143 (2) could not have been issued on 23rd of March 2000, i.e. prior to filing of return of income. Therefore, it was much of a case where the notice was purportedly issued and kept ready prior to even filing of the return of income by the assessee. In that situation, honourable High Court held that assessment completed on the basis of such notice is invalid.However, such is not the case before us. In the impugned case before us, the case of the assessee has been reopened on the basis of information available with the assessing officer. This decision is of no help to assessee.
16. Secondly,the case may be that assessee might have filed his original return of income. The assessee may have been issued notice u/s148 of The Income Tax Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO there is definite information available to the AO that 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 14 assessee has not shown his correct income. Then, when the assessee responds to the notice u/s148 of the act byfiling samereturn which was original filed or request by a letter to consider original return filed as a return in response to that notice, perhaps, in that situation, it may not take much of the time for the AO to issue notice u/s143 (2) of the act to the assessee. This is so because the a. AO has original return of income and b. assessee also wants to substitute that original return also in return in response to notice u/s148 therefore, the available information in the return is already on record with the assessing officer. Such a situation, it is possible that AO may on looking at the notice itself find it 'necessary" to issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the act. Thus imputing waiting time to the AO for issue of notice u/s143 (2) of the act is perhaps not justified. Because, in such cases the AO might have verified the original return of income at the time of issue of notice u/s148 of the act, if he does not find such information in the return, then only he issues notice u/s 148 of the act. Otherwise, why he would issue a notice if the information is available in the original return it. All the decisions, cited before us by assessee, fall into the second situation narrated by us. The decisions cited by the Ld. authorized representative are all of SMC whereas the division bench (same combination) has taken a view in Surana Enterprises V ITO ( ITA no 5414/Del/2018) dated 26/5/2020 as under:-
"21. The assessee has raised an over argument that on the date of compliance with the notice of 148 issued by the assessing officer, the AO has issued the Delhi Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2894/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Page | 15 notice u/s143 (2) of the 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 15 act on the same date. Therefore, the notice issued by the AO u/s143 (2) of the act is without application of mind. We do not find any force in the argument of the Ld. authorized representative. According to the provisions of section 143 (2), the AO on receipt of return, if considers it necessary or expedient, to ensure that assessee has not understated the income or has not computed the excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner asks assessee to attend before him. In the present case, the AO was already having the original return of income filed by the assessee u/s139 of the act. Thus, there is no change in the facts contained in original return as well as the letter submitted by the assessee. It was merely reiteration of same facts as contained in that return. On receipt of notice,u/s148 of the act the assessee has merely written a letter that original return may be considered as a return filed in response to the notice u/s148 of the act. Therefore, the original return was already available with the revenue/assessing officer. Further, the evidences were so clinching in the form of statement of the entry operator, statement of the supplier of the invoice and the inquiries conducted by the income tax department clearly proved that assessee has obtained an accommodation entry. Further, it cannot be said that if the notice has been issued by the AO on the same date on which return of income has been filed/or the return originally filed is intimated to be return in response to notice u/s148 of the act, the AO cannot apply his mind immediately. According to us, he can. There is no minimum threshold or gap of time prescribed u/s143 (2) of the act. Therefore, putting an artificial time break between the time of intimation of the return filed by the assessee and notice to be issued by the AO would be unreasonably putting a burden on 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 16 the revenue. In view of this, we dismiss this argument of the AR."
Therefore, in view of the decision of the coordinate bench, we do not agree with the proposition that even in such a situation as mentioned by us above, the notice issued u/s143 (2) of the act by the Ld. AO on the same date of the date of filing of the return can be found fault with.
17. However, another situation that arises, the assessee has not at all filed any return of income. Notice u/s148 in that case is issued to the assessee. AO does not have any other information except the AIR information available with him. If in such cases, when assessee files return, issuing notice u/s143 (2) of the act to the assessee on the spot perhaps shows that AO has not applied his mind on the return furnished by the assessee. Naturally AO will have to look at the AIR information or any other tangible material based on which notice u/s 148 of the act is issued, compare it with the details available in the return of income, then he can say that it is 'necessary" to issue notice to the assessee. It may happen that assessee might have filed the return incorporating the income covered in 148 notices. Thus, the issue is in such circumstance AO may need some time for verification.
18. The present case is one-step higher than third situation. In the present case, the return of income filed by the assessee was accompanied with the competition of income, the trading and profit and loss account as well as the balance sheet of the assessee along with the fixed assets account and capital account. At the time of issue of notice, the AO was merely having information about cash deposit of 1297900 in his savings bank account maintained with Indusind Bank Limited. AO did not have any information about what kind of business assessee is doing, whether the bank 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 17 account in which alleged is deposited, whether that appears in the balance sheet of the assessee. Whether the level of income shown by the assessee justifies the amount of cash deposited etc. In such a situation, it can be said that, the AO didnot thought it "necessary' but issued the notice in a mechanical manner.If assessment order is read carefully, it shows that not only he issued the notice u/s143 (2)/142 (1) of the act but also issued questionnaire. In addition, that too along with the notices was served on the spot when he went to file the return to the counsel of the assessee. In such a situation the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court, this clearly says that before issue of notice, AO has to examine the return filed by the assessee. In the present case, not only that the AO issued the notice on the spot to the counsel of the assessee but also issued questionnaire along with that. In such a situation, we are unable to sustain the assessment order passed by the Ld. assessing officer. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s143 (3) of the act on 28/12/2016. Thus, we allow the additional ground number [1] raised by the assessee.
19. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on jurisdictional issue, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits as well as other grounds of appeal and therefore they are dismissed as not adjudicate.
20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/05/2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date: 27/05/2020.
5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 18 *AK Keot* Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant;
2. Respondent;
3. CIT
4. CIT (Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar P a g e | 19 Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 5161/Del/2019 Mr. Hemant Mittal V ITO Ward -2, Hissar