Smt. Sunita Choudhary, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3385/DEL/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 338520114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AEOPC8247H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3385/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sunita Choudhary, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 08-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 30-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NOS.3147/DEL/2008 & 3385/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. SUNITA CHOUDHARY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX C-20 DUGGAL COLONY VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 NEW DE LHI. DEVLI ROAD NEW DELHI. PAN: AEOPC8247H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SATYEN SETHI ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJ TANDON CIT-DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. ITA NO.3385/DEL/2011 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN AN APPEAL ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 153B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) DATED 31.12.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3. ANOTHER APPEAL BEING ITA NO.3147/DEL/2008 IS DIR ECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 18.08.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER 2 SEC. 263 OF THE ACT HOLDING THE ORDER DATED 25.01. 2008 PASSED UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SEC. 132 WA S CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTH ER ASSOCIATED PERSONS/CONCERNS ON 10.11.2005. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ALO NG WITH SEARCH OPERATION A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SEC. 133A WAS A LSO CARRIED OUT AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED FROM THE ASSESSEE S GROUP. 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE AO HAD ISSUE D NOTICE UNDER SEC. 153A ON 17.07.2006 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4 88 200/-. THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2)/142(1) WAS ISS UED AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O SHOW-CAUSE WHY ADDITION TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS CON CERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S. MISTHAAN CAF. THE ASSESSEE IN HER REPL Y STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF SALES. AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1 3 85 500/- HAS ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. I N THIS REGARD THE AO 3 REFERRED TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI KRISHAN KUM AR CHOUDHARY BEFORE THE DDIT (INVESTIGATION) ON 18.01.2006 WHERE SHRI K RISHAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.40 LAKHS AS UNDIS CLOSED PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THREE LET OUTS OF M/S. MISTHAAN CAF. SINCE RS. 13 85 500/- OUT OF THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.40 LAKH HAS ALREADY BEEN SURRENDER ED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS TREATED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM M/S. MISTHAAN CAF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY THE AO. THE AO STATED THAT THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS ADDED BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AS SHE BECAME THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MISTHAAN CAF DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS THE ADD ITION OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON 28.01.2008. IN THE MEAN TIME THE ASSESS EE ALSO SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- OUT OF TOTAL AM OUNT OF RS.40 00 000/- SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH HAS AL READY BEEN ADDED IN THE CASE OF M/S. MISTHAAN CAF (SAKET) IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 AND THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS A 4 MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD RECTIFIABLE U/S 154 O F THE ACT. THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONT ENTION TO BE CORRECT AND RECTIFIED HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 14 3(3) ON 31.12.2007 BY EXCLUDING ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- FROM THE INCOM E ASSESSED AS PER ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 31.12.2007. SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE AO HIMSELF VIDE HIS ORDER U/S 154 DA TED 25.01.2008 THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO ALLOW HER TO WITHDRAW HER APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 5 00/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2007. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THEN OPINED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO PROVISION TO WITHDR AW THE APPEAL THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY HIM FOR ITS NON-PERSUASION. THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2008 IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER: - THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 31.12.2007 PASSED U/S 153B BY ACIT CENTRAL C IRCLE-3 NEW DELHI WHEREIN A SUM OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. HOWE VER IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D A LETTER DATED 14.3.2008 STATING THAT SHE IS WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 154 O F THE I.T. ACT WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY SHE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE ACIT CC-3 NEW DELHI. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO PROVISION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF BY D ISMISSING THE SAME FOR ITS NON PERSUASION. 7. IN THE MEAN TIME THE LEARNED CIT HAD EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AOS ORDER DATED 2 5.01.2008 PASSED U/S 154 5 OF THE ACT BY TAKING A VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN EXCLUDED AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VI DE ORDER DATED 18.08.2008 HELD THAT THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 PAS SED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE IT IS E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED CIT FURT HER HELD THAT ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3 1.12.2007 U/S 143(3)/153B HAS BEEN WRONGLY DELETED BY THE AO. TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE A CT. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE CITS ORDER DATED 18.08 .2008 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL ON 16.10.2 008 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN NUMBERED AS ITA NO.3147/DEL/2008. 9. SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- STOOD DELET ED VIDE AOS ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14. 03.2008 FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 153B/143(3) D ATED 31.12.2007. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ARISING FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 IT WAS REALIZED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED 6 BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 25.01.2008 DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/-MAY NOT BE SURVIVED. THE ASSESSEE T HEREFORE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.03.2008 DISMISS ING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NON-PERSUAS ION. THIS APPEAL IS BARRED BY 1133 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APP LICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2008 ARISING FROM THE AOS ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3)/153B ON 31.12.2007. IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 6 14 500/- GOT DELETED BY THE AOS ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 25.01.2008 NO APPEAL AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.03.2008 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR NON-PERSUASION WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE CITS ORDER DATED 18.08.2008 PASSE D U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ADDITION O F RS.26 14 500/- GOT REVIVED AND IN ORDER TO SEEK REDRESSAL OF HER GRIEV ANCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2008 SO THAT ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- MAY BE ADDRESSED ON MERIT IN CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 18.08.2008 IS FOUND TO BE VALID. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THERE WAS ANY MALA FIDE IN NOT FILING THE A PPEAL IN TIME NOR WAS THE 7 DELAY A PART OF DILATORY STRATEGY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DELAY HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT HER GRIEVANCE WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY PURSUING T HE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE DELAY IS CONDONED IT WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WILL ONLY RESULT IN DETERMINING THE CORRECT TAX LIA BILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND I N THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS DELETED BY THE AO HIMSELF VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.01.2008 PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT T HE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT NO APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2008 WHEREBY THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PERSUASION. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE A CT PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WITHIN TIME AND IS PENDI NG ADJUDICATION BEFORE US AND HAS ALSO BEEN HEARD ALONG WITH THIS APPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL EARLIER AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 4.03.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOR WAS THE DELAY A PART OF DILATORY STRATEGY. WE THEREFORE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE 8 ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2008 ARISIN G FROM THE AOS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/153B DATED 31.12 .2007 WHERE THE ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. 11. WE SHALL NOW FIRST TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 12. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALREADY OBSERVED AB OVE THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.26 14 500/- BEING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.40 00 000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE P RESENT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.26 1 5 000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. MISTHAAN CAF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THEREFORE THE VERY SAME ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND IT IS DESERVE TO BE DELETED. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2009 PASSED BY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL DELHI BENCH `E NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF MISTHAAN CAF FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND FIND THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER THE ISSUE GETS SETTLED REGARDI NG THE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE M ATTER IN THE CASE OF MRS. 9 SUNITA CHOUDHARY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS TO B E FINALIZED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE ADDITION MAD E IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY IS FINALLY SUSTAINED NO ADDITION SHALL BE CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF M/S. MISTHAAN CAF IN SO FAR AS BALANCE AM OUNT OF DISCLOSURE OUT OF RS.40 00 000/- WAS CONCERNED. IN THIS CASE WE FIN D THAT MR. KRISHAN KUMAR IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 18.01.2006 ADMITTED A SUM OF RS.40 00 000/- AS SUPPRESSED PROFIT OF THREE UNITS OF M/S. MISTHAAN C AF FOR THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 2004 TO AUGUST 2005. M/S. MISTHAAN CAF WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT WAS CONSISTING OF TWO PARTNERS NAMELY MRS. KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY. IT HAD BEEN S TATED THAT MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON 1.06 .2005. THE PARTNERSHIP WAS RECONSTITUTED AND MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR JOINED AS A NEW PARTNER WITH MR. KRISHAN KUMAR. PURSUANCE TO THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OUTLET AT SAKET REMAINED WITH RECONSTITUTED FIRM M/ S. MISTHAAN CAF WHEREAS LET OUT KHANPUR AND C.R. PARK WERE GIVEN TO RETIRIN G PARTNER I.E. MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY. MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY OPERATED CAF AT KHANPUR AS PROPRIETOR AND OTHER CAF AT C.R. PARK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MR. KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF. FROM THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE INCOME OF M/S.MISTHAAN C AF FOR THE PERIOD FROM 10 DECEMBER 2004 TO AUGUST 2005 IS ASSESSABLE IN DIF FERENT HANDS AFTER VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM REGARDING RECONSTITU TION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ETC. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUM OF RS.13 85 500/- OUT OF RS.40 00 000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HA NDS OF MISTHAAN CAF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SUM OF RS.7 45 805/- HAS ALSO BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS O F MR. KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HE HAS F URTHER STATED THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.18 69 415/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED BY THE AO IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF M/S. MISTHAAN CAF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS THUS TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETH ER THE REMAINING AMOUNT OUT OF TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.40 00 000/- IS ASSESS ABLE IN THE HANDS OF MISTHAAN CAF OR THE PRESENT ASSESSEE MRS. SUNITA C HOUDHARY OR MR. KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY. IN THE CASE OF M/S MISTHA AN CAF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT THE ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEE N MADE IN THE HANDS OF MRS. SUNITA CHOUDHARY AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT STA TEMENT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AFTE R DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF MRS. SUNITA CHOUD HARY. SINCE ALL THESE FACTS ABOUT THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM AND OWN ERSHIP OF DIFFERENT OUTLETS BY DIFFERENT PERSONS AT DIFFERENT TIMES HAS NOT BEE N EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE AO WE FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE 11 AO FOR HIS FRESH DECISION. THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBE RTY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS FACTS SO WARRANTED AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE FREE TO PLACE HIS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO AND PRODUCE NECESSARY EVI DENCES BEFORE HIM. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE AND VERIFY ALL THE FACT AND DE TAILS AND THEN SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12 .2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) DATED 14.03.2008 ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSMENT IS RESTORED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.03.2008 IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153B OF THE ACT FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT THE AOS ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT RECTIFYING ASSESSME NT ORDER MADE U/S 143(3)/153B HAS BECOME REDUNDANT AND INFRUCTUOUS A ND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT DATED 18.08.2008 PASSED UN DER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THUS THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT S ORDER U/S 263 IS DISMISSED AS IN FRUCTUOUS. 12 ITA NOS.3147/DEL/2008 & 3385/DEL/2011 16. TO SUM UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARI SING FROM THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CITS ORDER U/S 263 IS TREATED TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 17. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 8 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JULY 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.