Loading judgment…
Facts
For AY 2016-17, the AO made an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 for unexplained cash credit, based on an email suggesting an 'entry' in lieu of cash. The assessee claimed these were genuine unsecured loans received via banking channels and provided supporting documents. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition but re-characterized it u/s 69A as unexplained money, without issuing an enhancement notice.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by changing the section of addition from 68 to 69A, as this amounted to introducing a new source of income or changing the characterization of income. Such an action requires an enhancement notice u/s 251(1)(a), which was not issued. Citing precedents, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s action unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can change the section of addition from 68 to 69A, treating unexplained cash credit as unexplained money, without issuing a notice for enhancement under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 69A, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 251, Section 251(1)(a), Section 69, Section 69B, Section 69C, Section 69D, Section 147, Section 148, Section 263, Section 131(1A), Section 31
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3032/Del/2022 Asstt. Year 2016-17 Prashant Pitti, Vs. ACIT, C-179, Central Circle-4, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. New Delhi-110095. PAN AWXPP4522D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. & Shri Anoop Mehta, CA Department by: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing: 21.11.2023 Date of 07.02.2024 pronouncement:
O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.10.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi, (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment year (“AY”) 2016-17.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by CIT (A) is contrary to the facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) could not have treated the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the
Page 1 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti Act (on account of unexplained money) as addition made u/s 69A of the Act, in the absence of any power provided u/s 250 and 251 of the Act. 2.1 That without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- under a different section as compared to the addition made in the assessment order without issuing a notice for enhancement of income as contemplated u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act. 2.2 That without prejudice to the above the action of the CIT (A) in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- under a different section of the Act amounts to enhancement of income by introducing the new source of income which is contrary to the settled proposition of law laid down by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres 107 Taxmann 447. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from M/s Influence Software Architect and M/s Ezeebe Travel Solutions by treating the same as unexplained money of the appellant. 3.1 That without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- pertaining to the amount of unsecured loans received from the above referred parties u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of any finding that the assessee was the owner of any unexplained asset, as the amount towards unsecured loan is reflected as a liability of the assessee. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier.”
Briefly stated the facts are that for AY 2016-17, the assessee filed his return on 09.02.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,88,790/-. On 10.08.2017 search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was conducted in ‘ETPPL Group’ of cases and the assessee was also covered. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the Act was served upon the assessee, in response to which he filed return on 27.09.2019 declaring income returned originally. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment on 25.12.2019 on total income of Rs. 34,88,790/- u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act including therein an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, observing as under in para 5 of assessment order:
Page 2 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act: “5.
During the search and seizure proceedings, assessee was found using these three mail Ids i.e. rikant@easemytrip.com. nishant@easemytrip.com and rikant2005@gmail.com of assessee group. The domain name "easemytrip.com" was on Google account. The contents of the mail are reproduced as under:
Send cash of 30 to ajay ji today, he will give 20 entry in Nishant Pati nishant@rasematras.com To PRASHANT PITTI Cc Ajay Jain, Malini Jain Prashant Pitti A/c No.-00531000143427 IFSC: HDFC0000053 Bank Name HDFC Karamangla, Bangalore
Statement of Mr. Nishant Pitti was recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) of the IT ACL 1961. In a mail dated 01.07.2015 send by Nishant Piti to his brother Prashant Pitti, Mr. Nishant Pitti is instructing him to give Rs. 30 lac to one Mr. Ajay saying that Mr. Ajay will give an entry of the same amount. It is noteworthy that the email has been marked to Mrs. Malini Jain also. Mr. Nishant Pitti had stated in his statement that the transaction belong to year 2015 and he needed to check and confirm back but he had not given the explanation to this transaction till date. He also could not explain as to where the said cash of Rs. 30 Lac received from. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash send to Mr. Ajay. The above referred email mentions about cash transaction of Rs. 30 lac on 01.07.2015 for the purpose of receiving entry in the accounts of Sh. Prashant Pitti. It has also been reported by the investigation wing that on examination of bank statement of Sh. Prashant Pitti reveals that Rs. 30,00,000/- has been received through RTGS collectively from two entities Le. M/s Influence Software Architects (AEFPJ8047P) (Rs. 8 lac each on 07.07.2015 & 09.07.2015) and M/s Ezeeibe Travel Solution (ACZPJ8799G) (Rs. 7 lac each on 07.07.2015 & 09.07.2015). The date of receipt of such fund is immediately after i.e. within few days only, of the email message for transfer of cash. As per the information available on Page 3 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti public domain, both these entities are operated from Pitampura and run by Mr. Ajay Jain. It is reasonably concluded that the funds of Rs. 30,00,000/- received by the assessee are merely entry through Mr. Ajay Jain in lieu of cash provided to him. It is further seen from the bank statement of the assessee that the said amount has been transferred to M/s Ultimate Infracity Pvt. Ltd. which is a related entity of ETPPL group where the assessee is one of the directors.”
The Ld. AO required the assessee to explain cash of Rs. 30,00,000/- from unexplained sources. The assessee submitted before him reply, the relevant portion of which is reproduced by the Ld. AO as under:
“This has reference to show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 for A.Y. 2016- 17 in the case of Prashant Pitti wherein it has been mentioned as under: As per the information received from DDIT (Inv) Unit 4(2), New Delhi you have received Rs 16,00,000/- through RTGS from M/s influence Software Architect and Ra 14,00,000/- from M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions. These entries mere a accommodation entries settles by you in cash. You are show cause as to why Rs. 30,00,000/- received in your bank account against cash payment should not be treated as accommodation entries in guise of unexplained sources and Rs 30,00,000- should not be added back to your total income w/s 68 of the I.T. Act, during the year under consideration." In this regard it is submitted that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- each from M/s Influence Software Architect and M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions instead of Rs 16,00,000/- and 14,00,000/- as mentioned in the notice. The assessee has taken loan in the following manner: Party Amount Date (in Rs.) M/s Influence Software Architect 8,00,000/- 07.07.2015 M/s Influence Software Architect 7,00,000/- 09.07.2015 Total Rs. 15,00,000/- M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions 7,00,000/- 07.07.2015 M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions 8,00,000/- 09.07.2015 Total Rs.15,00,000/- It is pertinent to note here that M/s Influence Software Architect is the proprietary concern of Mr. Anil Jain and M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions is proprietary concern of Mrs. Malini Jain. In this regard copy of confirmation from M/s Influence Software Architect and M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions is enclosed hereinafter as Annexure-A hereby proving the identity of the parties and genuineness of the transaction. Further, ITR of the proprietors Mr. Anil Jain and Mrs. Malini Jain is enclosed hereinafter as Annexure-B hence there is no dispute regarding the genuineness and the credit worthiness of the parties. It is further clarified that no cash has been exchanged in this case and the amount of loan has been taken through the Page 4 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti banking channels and the same is evidenced by the bank statement of Mr Prashant Pitti which is hereinafter being axxexed as Annexure-C Hence, loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- taken from M/s Influence Software Architect and Rs 15,00,000/- taken from M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solutions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.”
The explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO for the following reasons:
“During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee only filed copy of confirmation of loan alongwith copy of ITR of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain and Smt. Malini Jain. The assessee stated in his submission that the during the year under consideration he has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from M/s Influence Software Architect and M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solution where Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain and Smt. Malini Jain are the proprietor and proprietress of the aforesaid concern. The assessee only filed acknowledgment copy of ITR of the aforesaid two individuals from whom the assessee has taken loan as claimed by him. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to file the copy of bank statements and financial statements of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain and Smt. Malini Jain. The purpose of alleged unsecured loans was taken by the assessee is also silent in his submission. From the discussion made in preceding paras, it is proved beyond doubt that alleged parties have given entries in disguise unsecured loan as stated in mail mentioned supra in lieu of cash, furthermore, these loans cannot be considered genuine as the copy of ITR for A.Y. 2016-17 of Sh. Ajay Jain reveals that Sh. Jain declared only Rs. 7,86,080/- as a total income in his ITR. Similarly, Smt Malini Jain declared income only Rs. 9,33,570/- in her ITR for AY. 2016-17. Thus, it is quiet impractical that the aforesaid persons provided interest free loan to the assessee out of his earnings. Thus, the reasonableness of the fact in this issue is very much lacking in this case.”
Accordingly, the Ld. AO made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act against which the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition u/s 69A of the Act instead of section 68 by holding and observing as under:
“27. The appellant is an individual and not required to maintain books of accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was incorrect in applying the provisions of section 68 in the case of the appellant.
Page 5 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti 28. However, during the course of search on the basis of document in the form of email, the appellant was found to be owner of Rs.30,00,000/-. The amount of cash remained unexplained by the appellant. The appellant could not explain the source of acquisition of such unexplained cash. In this regard, the provision of section 69A is reproduced as under:- "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer), satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." 29. It appears that while making the addition on account of taking entry of loan by giving cash, AO has considered it as cash credit in the books of accounts and covered by section 68 and therefore, and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 30. In my opinion the correct section should be 69Aof the Act. In section 69A, emphasis is on "or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory". It has been held in para 6.3 of the order of the Assessing Officer that explanation given by the appellant is not acceptable, therefore, Section 69A of the Act is squarely applicable on the appellant 31. In this respect, it is relevant to mention here that the CIT (Appeal) has concurrent jurisdiction with the AO. It is mandatory to examine the facts of the case properly and to tax the income under the correct provision of the Act. For this purpose the reliance is hereby placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Coal Syndicate, 53 ITR 225 (SC). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: "If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof he may set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do." Keeping in view the above facts and discussion and in order to remove any ambiguity, it is held that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained money is treated as unexplained money of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act.”
Page 6 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti 8. The assessee is dissatisfied and is before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto.
The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has applied and confirmed the impugned addition u/s 69A as against section 68 under which the Ld. AO made the addition. He contended that change of section for the purpose of confirming addition is not in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) is not legally competent to do so. If the Ld. CIT(A) wished to change the section from 68 to 69A for the impugned addition, he should have issued notice of enhancement which he has not done. He emphatically submitted that confirmation of the impugned addition by the Ld. CIT(A) under different section of the Act is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgements:
(i) Toffee Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 429 (Del-Trib) (ii) Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT (1999) 110 taxmann.com 119 (Del-Trib) (iii) CIT vs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del) (iv) CIT vs. Sadari Lal & Co. (2002) 120 taxmann.com 595 (Del)
The Ld. CIT(DR) invited our attention to para 25 of the appellate order and emphasised that the trail of money is clearly established. The source of money has not changed. What has been changed by the Ld. CIT(A) is the correct section 69A under which the addition is to be made legally which was wrongly made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act. According to him, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is lawful and cited the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sneh Lata v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 139 (All) in support.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute. The impugned addition is made on the basis of the contents of email (reproduced earlier), which according to the Ld. AO reveals that funds of Rs. 30,00,000/- received by the assessee are merely entry through Mr. Ajay Jain in lieu of cash provided to him, and that the said Page 7 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti amount has been transferred by the assessee to M/s Ultimate Infracity Pvt. Ltd., related entity of ETPPL Group where the assessee is one of the Director. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the said cash. The explanation of the assessee before the Ld. AO was that he took loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from M/s Influence Software Architect, a proprietary concern of Mr. Anil Jain and M/s Ezbeeibe Travel Solution, a proprietary concern of Mrs. Malini Jain. Confirmations from both the entities were submitted. IT Return of the proprietor of the said entities was filed. It was submitted that the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction. It was also stated by the assessee that no cash has been exchanged. Loan has been taken through banking channel which is evidenced by the bank statement of the assessee. Therefore, the aforesaid loan taken by the assessee from the said entities cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to file copy of bank statements and financial statements of the creditors and that the purpose of loan taken by the assessee has not been stated by the assessee. This resulted in the impugned addition to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A).
11.1 The Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the e-mail which establishes that the assessee received money in the form of loan through cheque with the addendum ‘after giving cash’ for which there is no evidence at all. The objection raised by the assessee that the creditors have not been examined in this regard has been over ruled by the Ld. CIT(A) by stating it to be ‘baseless’. The Ld. CIT(A) while approving the impugned addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act was of the opinion that the correct section for making the impugned addition should be section 69A of the Act.
Page 8 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti 12. The issue for consideration before us is “whether the CIT(A) is within his powers under the Act to confirm the addition u/s 69A of the Act as against the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act.”
Before we proceed further, it may be noticed that sections 68, 69 and 69A to 69D fall in Chapter VI under the heading ‘Aggregation of Income’ and deem certain items of income of a particular previous year to be aggregated in arriving at the total income. However, there is difference in the language employed in section 68 and those in sections 69 to 69C of the Act. Section 68 of the Act enacts that the unexplained cash credit ‘may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year’, section 69 to 69C ‘deem the unexplained investment, unexplained money etc., amount of investment etc., not fully disclosed in books of accounts and unexplained expenditure etc., to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Such distinction assumes legal significance in the context of change of section 68 to 69 etc., for the purpose of addition.
The contention of the Ld. AR is that the Ld. CIT(A) has exceeded his powers vested in him u/s 250 and 251 of the Act . Change of section 69A by the Ld. CIT(A) from section 68 for the purpose of the impugned addition made by the Ld. AO tantamounts to enhancement of income as contemplated u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act by introducing new source of income, cannot be done without issuing notice for enhancement.
14.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while applying section 69A of the Act has not recorded any finding that the assessee was the owner of any unexplained asset as the amount towards unsecured loan is reflected as a liability of the assessee. On this count also the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable.
Page 9 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti 15. Record shows that Ld. AO made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act after requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash of Rs. 30,00,000/- which the assessee explained to be unsecured loans obtained from two creditor entities and produced evidence to establish their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. However, the Ld. AO did not consider the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory for lack of creditor’s bank and financial statements, which the assessee could have furnished if the Ld. AO has asked for during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. AO did not do so.
15.1 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition but u/s 69A of the Act. It is this change of section 69A from that of section 68 that the assessee has challenged by contending that it is not in accordance with law as it is in excess of the powers vested in Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 and 251 of the Act. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the said change tantamount to enhancement of income by introducing new source of income without giving a specific notice to the assessee to that effect. The decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh is in support of this view expressed in Brahmiah(y) vs. ITO (2015) 229 Taxman 558 (AP). The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has taken a similar view in Roshan Motors vs. ITO (2015) 64 taxmann.com 381 (Del-Trib).
In Toffee Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. (supra), Ld. CIT(A) treated addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C as had been made u/s 69B and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. When the matter came for consideration before the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that in the absence of any power provided u/s 250 and 251 of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) could not have treated addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C as addition made under section 69B and that action of Ld. CIT(A) in treating addition made under section 69C as had been made under section 69B was contrary to law.
Page 10 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti 17. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had occasion to consider “whether enhancement by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act is prohibited on issues which have not at all been considered by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings” in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT (2019) 179 ITD 310 (Del-Trib) and the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not competent to enhance assessment by taking an income which income was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by Ld. AO during assessment.
The decision in Smt. Sneh Lata (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(DR) is of no help to the Revenue as in that case the AY involved was 1946-47 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered the decision in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case under the 1922 Act.
It is revealed from the appellate order that the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the decision (supra) that the powers of Ld. CIT(A) are wide being co- terminus with those of the Ld. AO, but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to notice that it was so that he [Ld. CIT(A)] could entertain issues which had not been examined by the Ld. AO. In the case before us, Ld. AO examined the issue thoroughly and thereafter applied the provisions of section 68 of the Act for making the impugned addition. In our humble opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in relying on the decision (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The issue whether the Ld.CIT(A) has power to enhanced the income from a source which was not before him in appeal is shrouded in controversy. In CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court considered the relevant decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the powers of Ld. CIT(A) “co-terminus with
Page 11 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti that that of the Ld. AO” so that “the Ld. CIT(A) can do what the Ld. AO can do and can also direct him to do what he failed to do”, a proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Coal Syndicate (supra) which was followed in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and applied the principles of Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their earlier decisions in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891(SC) and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) that there is a solitary but significant limitation to the power of Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act, namely that it is not open to him to introduce in the assessment a new source of income and the assessment has to be confined to those items of income which were the subject of matter of original assessment.
The same issue namely whether the first appellate authority has power to take into account a new source of income came up for consideration again for fresh adjudication before the full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del)(FB). The Revenue contended that proceedings before the first appellate authority cannot be restricted to only those matters considered and decided by the Ld. AO. The first appellate authority has the power to adjudicate and decide everything necessary to ascertain the true and correct income of the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand contended that if such a view was taken, the provision u/s 147/148 and 263 of the Act would become meaningless and purposeless. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court gave its verdict in favour of the assessee observing that it is unconceivable that in the presence of specific provision u/s 147/148 and 263 of the Act, a similar power is available to the first appellate authority.
Accordingly, in the light of the decisions (supra) and on the facts and in the circumstances of case, we decide the appeal in favour of the assessee.
Page 12 of 13
ITA No.- 3032/Del/2022 Prashant Pitti
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th February, 2024.
sd/- sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/02/2024 Pooja, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to - 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
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 the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order
Page 13 of 13