Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Xxavient Software Solutions (I) Pvr. ... vs Dcit, Noida on 18 April, 2018
In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi
Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And
Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member
ITA No. 140/Del./2017
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Xavient Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle-3,
54, Noida Special Economic Zone, Phase-II, Noida.
Noida. (PAN - AAACX0465F)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &
Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate
Revenue by Sh. S.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 20.03.2018
Date of Pronouncement 18.04.2018
ORDER
Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 28.10.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds :
1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') without giving adequate opportunity to furnish details/ submissions/ evidences or personal hearing, which is against the principles of Natural Justice and hence liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reassessment order dated 28 January ITA No. 140/Del./2017 2 2016 passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act, is without jurisdiction, wrong and bad in law and liable to be quashed and the provisions of Sec. 147 are not applicable in this case.
3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the reassessment order disallowing the exemption u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act for Rs.4,57,16,415/- and ^ 52,66,799/- totaling to? 5,09,83,214/-, which were earlier allowed in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act after detailed examination and scrutiny of submissions/ documents alleging that Form 56F was not filed in the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.
4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act was allowed by the Ld. AO in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act after scrutiny by the Ld. AO of the submissions/ documents including Form 56F filed during the course of the assessment proceedings.
5. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening u/s 147 / 148 of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act is without any new material, and/or is on change of opinion, and also for factually incorrect allegations and hence, the provisions of section 147/ 148 are not applicable and the reassessment order passed is void ab-initio.
6. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Form 56F in respect of exemption u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act were filed in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for which affidavit was submitted before Ld. AO . The disallowance of exemption u/s 10A and 10AA solely on the allegation that Form 56F was not submitted besides being factually incorrect, also can not be the ground for disallowance of these exemptions on technical or venial breach of procedural requirements.
7. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the requirement of Form 56F is directory in nature and not mandatory and the disallowance of exemption u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act in the reassessment order is wrong and bad in law and the reassessment order is liable to be quashed.ITA No. 140/Del./2017 3
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The returned nil income was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 22.12.2011. The assessee had claimed exemptions u/s. 10A/10AA for the year, which were also accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. Later on, the case was reopened u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 12.03.2015. The notice was served on the assessee. The assessee did not make any objection for reopening neither filed revised return. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the return originally filed on 29.09.2009. The reasons for reopening are as under :
"Assessee claimed exemption u/s. 10A at Rs.4,57,16,415/- & u/s. 10AA at Rs.52,66,799/- respectively. Aggregate exemption for the year amounted to Rs. 5,09,83,214/-. The assessee has claimed allowable depreciation at Rs.1,44,01,237/-. As the assessee did not file the report u/r. 56F, which is mandatory as per the act for the claim of exemption u/s. 10A & 10AA (refer to section 10A(5) and section 10AA(8) of I.T. Act), total exempt income of Rs.3,65,81,977/- (Rs.5,09,83,214 - Rs.1,44,01,237/-) was wrongly allowed vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 22.12.2011. Since exemption u/s. 10A & 10AA is allowable only on filing report u/s 56F, hence, an amount of Rs.3,65,81,977/- has escaped assessment."
2.1 The Assessing Officer observed that for claiming exemption u/s. 10A/10AA, it is mandatory to file audit report in form No. 56F alongwith return of income or during the course of assessment proceedings, but the assessee failed to furnish the same upto the assessment proceedings. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted form No. 56F for the assessment year 2009-10 vide letter dated 16.11.2015, which was not taken cognizance of. The assessee was asked to furnish the evidence to show that Form No. 56 was filed in the original assessment proceedings, but he failed to ITA No. 140/Del./2017 4 submit any such evidence. The assessee, however, produced an affidavit deposing as under :
2. That during the course of assessment proceedings before A.O. in Noida, several documents were produced for verification /submission.
3. That Form 56F, being report u/s 10-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also submitted to the Assessing officer during the course of said hearing.
4. That the said Form 56F(Copy) was again submitted to Mr. Taneja, Inspector on 14/11/2014 also (in response to telecom) in person by the undersigned, though no official receipt thereof was given/obtained.
5. That the said Form 56F (copy) is being submitted again to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Noida on 24.11.2015.
2.2 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the re-assessment denying the exemption claimed u/s. 10A at Rs.4,57,16,415 and sec.10AA at Rs.52,66,799/- and added the same back to the income of the assessee.
Further, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation of Rs.1,44,01,237/-. Resultantly, the net taxable income calculated by the Assessing Officer was at Rs.3,65,81,977/-. The learned CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee upholding the action of the Assessing Officer vide impugned order passed exparte qua assessee, as despite several opportunities given, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Reiterating the grounds raised in this appeal, the assessee has also submitted a small written synopsis, which reads as under :
1. Before submissions are made on the legal issue, the point involved in the present appeal that proposition even if the audit report is filed in reassessment proceeding, exemption/deduction cannot be disallowed is directly covered by the following judicial decisions:-ITA No. 140/Del./2017 5
• G.S. Pharmbutor Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA 4255-4256/Del/2011, dated 25.11.2011, IT AT Delhi Bench.
• CIT vs. G.S. Pharmbutor Pvt. Ltd., ITA 134-135/2013, dated 19.03.2013, High Court of Delhi.
In the instant case also, undisputed facts (pi see page 3 of the impugned assessment order) are that audit report was in any case filed in reassessment proceeding (PIS 84-87, 87A-87B, 81-83). That being so, exemption denied may please be allowed in view of the above mentioned judicial decisions.
2. Without prejudice to above, the audit report was produced before Ld. AO during original assessment proceeding as deposed by CA (PB 87A-87B) and Ld. AO himself countered the audit objection by mentioning in the left margin of the audit objection initially and later on in his letter addressed to Ld. CIT that he has verified all the conditions of the grant of exemption u/s 10A which means verifying the audit report also. Thus, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the grant of exemption of section 10A.
3. Without prejudice to above, filing of audit report viz. Form 56F in the instant case, along with return is held to be directory condition and not mandatory condition in view of following judicial decisions and therefore also, disallowance of deduction u/s 10A by holding such requirement as mandatory by Ld. AO is unjustified:
• CIT vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd., 178 Taxman 0143, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs. Centimeters EIcctricals, 317 1TR 0249, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation, 254 ITR 0006, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Full Bench).
• Pr. CIT vs. Surya Merchants Ltd., 387 ITR 0105, High Court of Allahabad.
4. Even Hon'ble Courts have gone to the extent of holding in the following judicial decisions that Form 56F even not filed with the return but filed before Ld. CIT(A) or further appellate authorities, would meet the requirements of law. In the instant case, even the admitted case of Ld. AO in the impugned reassessment order is that it was filed in reassessment proceeding. That being so, where was the justification of denying the exemption u/s 10A etc in the instant case:
• CIT vs. American Data Solutions India (P) Ltd., 223 Taxman 0143, High Court of Karnataka.
• ITO vs. Last Peak Data (P) Ltd., 175 TTJ 0065, 1TAT Kolkata Bench. • CIT vs. G. Krishnan Nair, 259 ITR 0727, High Court of Kerala. • CIT vs. Bcrgcr Paints (India) Ltd., 254 ITR 0503, High Court of Calcutta. • Cybermate Infotek Ltd. vs. ACIT, 40 ITR (Trib) 0177, ITAT Hyderabad Bench.
• Mrs. Manju Kapoor Dalmia vs. ITO, 140 TTJ 0001, ITAT Delhi Bench (UO).ITA No. 140/Del./2017 6
5. Even Reopening was bad in law as the 'reason' recorded is incorrect and can not lead to the belief of escapement of income.
'Reason' of reopening mentions that as Assessee did not file the report under section 10A i.e. in form 56F which was mandatory as per the Act for claim of exemption, exemption u/s 10A etc was wrongly allowed.
First, it is not correct to say that 'filing of report was mandatory as per Act' in view of the above mentioned judicial decisions. In any case, Section 139C and 139D read with Rule 12(2) provided for electronic filing of return which prohibited for filing of the report with the return of income. Rather these sections provided that audit report would be filed when demanded by Ld. AO. Even ITR 6 which is income tax return form did not mandate of filing of Audit report in form No. 56F. Rather instructions appended to this form clearly mentions that figure of exemption shown in column 17 of Form no. 56F has to be shown in 'Schedule 10A' of the return of income.
Thus the very basis of reopening of the assessment was incorrect premise and in such a situation, reopening is bad in law as held in the following judicial decisions:-
• S. Power (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA 6544/2014, dated 29.04.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Raj Kumar Dugar (HUF) vs. ITO, 12 DTR 0016, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Shipra Srivastava & Anr. vs. ACIT, 319 ITR 0221, High Court of Delhi. • Balkrishna Hiralal Vani vs. ITO, 321 ITR 0519, High Court of Bombay.
6. Reopening has been done after four years and original assessment was made u/s 143(3) (PB 79-80) and there is no allegation in the 'reason' recorded about any failure of the assessee to disclose material facts and hence reopening is barred by limitation in terms of first proviso to section 147 and in view of the following judicial decisions:
• Harvana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT., 308 ITR 0038, High Court of Delhi. • Wcl Intcrtradc Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 308 ITR 0022, High Court of Delhi. • JSRS Udyog Ltd. & Anr. vs. ITO, 313 ITR 0321, High Court of Delhi. • Vishwanath Prasad Ashok Kumar Sarraf vs. CIT, 327 ITR 0190, High Court of Allahabad.
7. There is no fresh tangible material as is evident from the 'reason' recorded and original assessment was made u/s 143(3), assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law in view of following judicial decisions:
• PR. CIT vs. Tuppcrwarc India (P) Ltd., 236 Taxman 0494, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd., 354 ITR 0536, High Court of Delhi. • Mohan Gupta (HUF) vs. CIT & Anr., 365 ITR 0115, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs. K. L. Arora, ITA No. 118/2014, dated 21-04-2014, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs. Shri AtuI Kumar Swami, ITA No. 112/2014, dated 18-03-2014, High Court of Delhi.ITA No. 140/Del./2017 7
• Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 0165, High Court of Delhi. • HV Transmissions Ltd. vs. 1TO, I.T.A No. 2230/Mum/2010, ITAT Mumbal Bench.
8. There is change of opinion on the same set of facts as Ld. AO in his letter dated 22.05.2014 written to Ld. CIT and held in the departmental assessment records inspected on 22.12.2017, mentioned as under:
"......even at half margin note stage, audit party was told that the claim of exemption ii/s 10AA was verified by AO in assessment proceedings. The fact is substantiated as AO made specific query regarding admissibility of exemption through his questionnaire dated 25/01/2011 and thereafter allowed exemption after verification of facts. The audit party has not gone by other evidences which amply proves that the claim of exemption was verified by A O......"
Ld. AO mentioned in his hand writing in the left margin of audit objection raised by the audit party, held in the departmental assessment record and inspected on 22.12.2017, as under:
"...... .however the claim of exemption u/s 10AA was verified by AO in assessment proceedings.....,."
In view of the following judicial decisions, reassessment on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of facts is bad in law:
• CIT vs Kclvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 0561, Supreme Court of India. • Godrcj Agrovct Ltd. vs DCIT, (2010) 323 ITR 0097, High Court of Bombay. • BalkrishnalliralalWanivs. ITO, (2010)321 ITR 0519, High Court of Bombay. • Cartini India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 0275, High Court of Bombay. • Parvccn P. Bharucha vs. DCIT, (2012) 348 ITR 0325, High Court of Bombay. • Purity Tcchtcxtilc (P) Ltd. vs AC1T, (2010) 325 ITR 0459, High Court of Bombay. • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. vs ITO, (2009) 318 ITR 0295, High Court of Delhi. • CIT vs Kcane India Ltd., ITA 230/2012, dated 20-04-2012, High Court of Delhi.
9. The reassessment was done on the basis of 'audit note' as became clear from the inspection of departmental assessment records done on 22.12.2017, and therefore, in view of following judicial decisions reopening and reassessment are bad in law:
• P.C.Patel vs. DCIT, 379 ITR 0151, High Court of Gujarat. • National Constructions Co. vs. JCIT, 234 Taxman 0332, High Court of Gujarat Reassessment--Change of opinion--Notice based on audit objection--AO issuing notice under s. 148 on the basis of audit objection mechanically without any application of mind, such a notice was invalid suffering from change of opinion and no substantial question of law arises.--CIT vs. Indian Sussar & General Industry Export Import Corpn. Lid. 8 DTK 112(DeI) ITA No. 140/Del./2017 8
--Notice--Opinion of Revenue audit party with regard to non-availability of deduction under sections 80-IA and 80HHC--Change of opinion--Notice not valid-- Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148--Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO 3181TR295(Delhi) Notice expiry of four years vis-a-vis audit report -Assessee having made complete disclosure of relevant particulars before the AO in the assessment proceeding under s. 143(3), reassessment proceedings under s. 147 could not be initiated beyond the period of four years merely on the basis of the internal audit report.-- CIT vs. SimMiaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. 55 DTK 233 (Del.) • Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, 381 ITR 0387, High Court of Delhi.
10.There is no 'satisfaction' of the Pr. CIT u/s 151 as evident from the "form for recording reasons" placed before Hon'ble Bench on 06.11.2017, which mentions the word "Approved" and in view of the following judicial decisions such 'approval' does not meet the legal requirement of 'satisfaction' contemplated under section 151 and hence reassessment is bad in law:
• Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 98 CCH 0010, High Court of Delhi. • ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., ITA No. 4122/Del/2009, dated 22.10.2010, ITAT Delhi Bench.
• Pr. CIT vs. M.15. Jewellers (P) Ltd., ITA No. 615/2015, dated 19.08.2015, High Court of Delhi.
• ITO vs. M.B. Jewellers (P) Ltd., ITA No. 2499/Del/2011, dated 14.11.2014, ITAT Delhi Bench.
• CIT vs. Amar Khosla, ITA No. 133/2014, dated 20.07.2015, High Court of Delhi. • ITO vs. Shri Amar Khosla, ITA No. 1891/Del/2010, dated 26.08.2013, ITAT Delhi Bench.
11.Without prejudice to above, such 'approval' even if considered as "Satisfaction", is mechanical without application of mind and without giving any reason in support of such 'approval' and in view of following judicial decisions such reopening and reassessment is bad in law:
CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., 231 Taxman 0073, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., 237 Taxman 0378 Supreme Court of India.
Chaudhary & Sons Forging Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No. 1008/Del/2015, dated 12.07.2016, IT AT Delhi Bench.
Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO, ITA No. 51 ll/Del/2013, dated 04.07.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench.
Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr., 333 ITR 0237, High Court of Delhi.
Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. C ha 1 ill a & Ors., 79 ITR 0603, Supreme Court of India.ITA No. 140/Del./2017 9
United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 258 ITR 0317, High Court of Delhi. N.C. Cables (Del)(HC), supra Thus, it is prayed that viewed from any angle, the reassessment may please be held as bad in law and exemptions disallowed may please be allowed."
4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that for want of any evidence of filing the audit report in Form No. 56F in the original assessment proceedings or alongwith return, the ld. Authorities below are justified in rejecting the claim made by the assessee u/s. 10A/10AA of the Act.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. The vital question to be adjudicated in this appeal, inter alia, is whether the ld. Authorities below were justified in not considering the audit report furnished by the assessee in Form No. 56F during the course of re-assessment order on the premise that the said report was not filed alongwith the return or upto the original assessment order. The requisite audit report in form No. 56F was admittedly filed by the assessee in re-
assessment proceedings, though the assessee has claimed that the said report was also filed in original assessment proceedings, as deposed in the affidavit. The ld. Authorities below appear to have not taken cognizance of the audit report in Form No. 56F, furnished by the assessee in the reassessment proceedings in support of its claim, stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate that any such audit report was filed in the original assessment proceedings. It is also an undisputed fact that the claim made by assessee stood accepted in original assessment order. We have gone through various decisions relied on behalf of the parties and we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of co- ordinate Bench in the case of G.S. Pharmbutor Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4255 ITA No. 140/Del./2017 10
- 4256/Del./2011 dated 25.11.2011), wherein, the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the identical facts and circumstances decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding as under :
"6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that in the original assessment made under sec. 143(3) of the Act dated 24.10.2005 for the Assessment Year 2003-04 and assessment order under sec. 143(3) dated 10.03.2007 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, the assessee's claim of deduction under sec. 8o-IB was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment under sec. 147 of the Act for the reason that audit report in Form 1OCCB was not filed along with the return of income. In response to the notice issued under sec. 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that original return of income already filed on 2.12.2003 and 29.10.2004 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively may be treated as a return filed under sec. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated 12.01.2009 and 17.08.2009 in the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively submitted, amongst others, before the AO that filing of audit report along with the return of income is not mandatory but is to be treated as director and filing of the audit report during the assessment proceedings will be sufficient to comply the provisions of law contained in that behalf and accordingly, a copy of form 1OCCB dated 20.04.2003 and 10.10.2004 obtained from Aggarwal Sarraf & Co, Chartered Accountant, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, was furnished. It is, thus, clear that the audit report in Form 10CCB was available with the AO at the time when the assessment under sec. 147 of the Act was made. The claim of the assessee u/s 8o-IB has been disallowed in the reassessment made under sec. 147 of the Act though the same was allowed in the original assessment made under sec. 143(3) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken a view that the requirement of filing of an audit report under sec. 8oJ(6A), which is similar to that of sec. 8o-IA(7), is to be taken as a directory in nature, and in case, the audit report is submitted at any time before framing of the assessment, there will be substantial compliance with the provisions of sec. 8oJ(6A) of the Act. An identical view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in ITA No. 140/Del./2017 11 the case of CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.). There are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view as under: -
(ii) CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.). (ii) Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.), (iii) CIT Vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.).
(iv) CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). Referring to the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) has also taken a view that requirement of filing the audit report along with return is not mandatory but directory, and that if the audit report is filed at any time before framing of the assessment, the requirement of sec. 8o-IA(7) would be met.
8. In the present case, the audit report in Form No.10CCB was filed by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings completed under sec. 147 of the Act, during the course of which, the AO disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under sec. 8o-IB on the ground that the audit report was not filed along with the return of income. The expression "assessment" includes re-assessment as defined in sub-sec.(8) of sec. 2 of the Act. In the present case, the relevant assessment order is the assessment made under sec. 147 of the Act during the course of which proceedings, the assessee has furnished the audit report in prescribed form. We, therefore, hold that the requirement of filing the audit report for claiming the deduction under sec. 8o-IB has been satisfied by the assessee, and therefore, on this reason alone, the assessee's claim of deduction under sec. 8o-IB is not disallowable. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of assessee's claim made under sec. 8o-IB of the Act as the assessee has satisfied the condition of filing audit report during assessment proceedings initiated under sec. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall modify the assessment order accordingly.
9. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the assessee has also challenged the validity of proceedings under sec. 147 of the Act as well as the assessment made under sec. 147 of the Act on various grounds. Since the main issue of disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction under sec. 8o-IB has been decided in favour of the assessee as above, other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee have become redundant and need no adjudication at this stage."
ITA No. 140/Del./2017 12This order of ITAT, Delhi Bench, stood affirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in appeals of Revenue bearing ITA No. 134/2013 and 135/2013 vide order dated 19.03.2013 (copy placed on record). Therefore, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the impugned order is found not sustainable at all. As also observed by the coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision, since the core issue stood decided in favour of the assessee, being covered by the said decision, the other grounds raised on the validity of re-assessment proceedings need no adjudication at this juncture. Accordingly, the claim of assessee deserves to be allowed and the appeal of the assessee is found fit to be allowed.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bhavnesh Saini) (L.P. Sahu)
Judicial member Accountant Member
Dated: 18th April, 2018
*aks*
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Delhi Benches, New Delhi