Shri Ram Goswami, Delhi v. ITO, Ward- 35(3), New Delhi

ITA 445/DEL/2018 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44520114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AFOPG0785M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 445/DEL/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Shri Ram Goswami, Delhi
Respondent ITO, Ward- 35(3), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2019
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 17-01-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 444/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 RAM BHAJ GOSWAMI A-888 SHASTRI NAGAR NEW DELHI. VS ITO WARD 35(3) NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AFOPG0785M & ITA NO. 445/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI RAM GOSWAMI A-879 SHASTRI NAGAR NEW DELHI. VS ITO WARD 35(3) NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAUPG7237R ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.R. WADHWA ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI SURENDER PAL SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI O.P. MEENA A.M. THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-12 NEW DELHI DATED 17.11.2017. DATE OF HEARING 14.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2019 2 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS A RE COMMON THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OFF BY COMMON ORDER. 3. IN ITA NOD. 444/DEL/2018 & 445/DEL/2018 FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 17.11.2017 UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 84 45 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE-46A OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES 1962 AS THE DOCUMENT NAMELY AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012 SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS CRUCIAL AND WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 84 45 000/- BEING APPELLANTS HALF SHARE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT NARELA AT RS. 2 98 90 000/- FOR FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15) AND PURCHASE PRICE AT RS. 1 30 00 000/- SHOWN IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012 IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT HAVING ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012 AND MAKING PART PAYMENT TO THE VENDOR BY CROSS ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES THE ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF RS. 2 98 90 000/- FOR FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15) ON THE GROUND THAT SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 23.04.2013 I.E. DURING FY 2013-14 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 12.10.2012 SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (VII) OF SECTI ON 56(2) OF THE ACT SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2013 W.E.F. 01.04.2014 BEING NOT APPLICABLE THE 3 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 STAMP DUTY VALUE FOR FY 2013-14 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR AND HENCE THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ABOVE TREATING THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF ITS STAMP DUTY VALUATION OVER THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT AND SUBJECTING IT TO INCOME-TAX IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TAXATION OF REAL INCOME AND IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE. 7. THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS NO DIRECTION IN THIS REGARD WAS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT TO EACH OTHER. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. WE ARE DISCUSSING ITA NO. 445/DEL/2018 AS A LEAD CASE OF WHICH FINDING WOULD ALSO APPLIED IN THE CASE OF SHR I RAM BHAJ GOSWAMI AND THE FACTS OF THE BOTH CASES ARE IDENTIC AL. 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD JOINTLY PURCHASED PROPERTY WITH HIS BROTHER SHRI RA M BHAJ GOSWAMI LOCATED AT F-1493 NARELA INDUSTRIAL AREA DELHI. THE PERUSAL OF REGISTERED SALE DEED REFLECTED THAT CIRC LE RATE OF PROPERTY AT RS. 2 98 90 000/- AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 17 93 400/-. AS PER PAGE NO. 3 OF THE SALE DEED TH E ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AT RS. 1 30 00 000/-. THUS THE PROPERTY 4 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 WAS PURCHASED BELOW THE CIRCLE RATE BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 68 90 000/-. THE AO REFERRED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 56(2)(VII) ACCORDING TO WHICH THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF PROPER TY AS PER CIRCLE RATE AND THE COST OF PURCHASE PRICE WOULD BE ASSUME D TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PURCHASER AND WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB) WERE NOT APPLICAB LE AS THE PART PAYMENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 2012-1 3 ITSELF RELEVANT TO AY 2013-14 DURING WHICH THE SAID SECTIO N WAS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER F IRST AND SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB) OF THE ACT IF THE D ATE OF REGISTRATION AND THE STAMP DUTY VALUE ON THE AGREEMENT ARE NOT S AME THEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE ON THE AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSISTING AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXCEPT THE PRESENT SA LE DEED ENTERED BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE VENDING IN THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 84 45 000/- BEING ONE HALF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB ) OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATI ON UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1965 STATING THAT FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: 1. COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 12.10.2012; 2. COPY OF CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 12.10.201 2; 3. COPY OF CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 23.04.201 3. 5 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND THESE GOES TO THE VERY R OOT OF THE CASES THEREFORE THESE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT HE DOES NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE SAID AGREEMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTE RED INTO ON 12.10.2012 WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO POINTED OUT CLAUSE (5) OF THE SALE DEED DATED 23.04.2013 TH AT THERE WAS NO SUBSISTING AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXCEPT THE PRESENT SA LE DEED ENTERED BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE VENDEE IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF SAID SALE DEED DATED 23.04.2013 THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO SE LL AND NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER CLAUSE ( 5) OF THE SALE DEED THE SAME REFERS TO DENIAL OF ANY PRIOR SALE OF ANY PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER IN FA VOUR OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS AND THE VENDOR HAS A GOOD M ARKETABLE TITLE. THIS CLAUSE ITEM IS GENERALLY WRITTEN IN TH E SALE DEED TO GUARD AGAINST ANY SALE BY WAY OF LEGAL ASSURANCE. IT DOES NOT MEAN OR IMPLY THAT PRIOR TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEE D THERE WAS NO 6 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE VENDEE . ITS EXISTENCE IS CLEARLY PROVED IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS FROM PAGE 6 OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHERE THE PARTICULARS OF T HE PAYMENTS BY CROSS ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AGGREGATING TO RS. 20 L AKHS MADE THROUGH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012 HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AS UNDER: I) RS. 5 00 000/- CH. NO. 153624 DATED 11.10.2012 II) RS. 5 00 000/- CH. NO. 182173 DATED 11.10.2012 III) RS. 5 00 000/- CH. NO. 153623 DATED 12.10.2012 IV) RS. 5 00 000/- CH. NO. 182174 DATED 11.10.2012 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO N EVER ASKED FOR PRODUCTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.201 2 AND AS SUCH THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING S THE SAME WAS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UN DER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 BUT THE CIT(A) HAS DE CLINED TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER THE SAME WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND AGREED WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN I NVOKING SUB CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SE CTION 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 201 3 AND MADE THE SAME AS APPLICABLE FROM AY 20014-15 ONWARDS. I N THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO PURCHASE AN INDUST RIAL PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.30 CRORES VIDE AGREEME NT TO SELL ENTERED INTO ON 12.10.2012 RELEVANT TO AY 2013-14. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF VALUE EXCEEDING RS. 100/- THE TRANSFER CAN BE SAID TO BE EFFECTED 7 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS AN D NOT ON THE DATE ON WHICH A DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED IN THE BOOK S OF REGISTRAR. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANC E IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEW IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. ALLAPATI VENKATARAMIAH VS. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (S C) 2. CIT VS. PODDR CEMENT P. LTD. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC ) 3. CIT VS. VISHNU TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY (2003 ) 259 ITR 724 (RAJ.) 10. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER GROUN D NO. 6 OF APPEAL NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. AO IN T REATING THE EXCESS OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OVER THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS DEEMED INCOME ALLOWING THE APPELLA NT TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS THE REAL MAR KET PRICE AND THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE WAS ARTIFICIAL AND UNREAL . IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F ILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTE R MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AS DENOVO . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF IN THE CASE OF SELLER SHRI RAKESH KUKREJA S/O SHRI SHYAM DAS KUKREJA OF C-276 PRASHANT VIHAR DELHI 110085 (PAN AAHPK9089N) THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SALE DEED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN S U/S 50C (WHOSE PROVISIONS ARE PERIMATERIA WITH THOSE OF SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE ACT) HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE IT WAS REQUESTE D THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN EACH OF THE TWO CASES MAY BE SE T ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APP ELLANTS TO 8 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 PRODUCE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND OTHER RELEVANT EV IDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION REPRESENTS THE REAL MARKET PRICE AT WHICH THE PURCHASE WAS MADE AND NO ADDITION IS R EQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PERMIT THE APPE LLANTS TO RAISE RELEVANT ISSUES INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 11. PER CONTRA THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PE R CLAUSE (5) OF REGISTERED SALE DEED THERE IS NO SUBSISTING AGREEME NT TO SELL THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ENTERED BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND VENDEE. THEREFORE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012 WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) H AVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED. HOWEVER HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXA MINE THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL DATED 12.10.2012 FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDI NGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS NO T ASKED PRODUCTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.10.2012. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER THIS AGREEMENT GO ES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE THESE ARE ALLOWED TO BE A DMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. SUCH EVIDENCE MADE ULTIMATELY TURN OUT TO BE BENEFIT OF EITHER TAX PAYER OR REVENUE. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON`BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. TEXT 9 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 HUNDRED INDIA (P)LTD.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (DEL): 197 T AXMAN 128(DEL) : 51 DTR 241(DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 13. THE AFORESAID CASE LAW CLEARLY LAYS DOWN A NEAT PRI NCIPLE OF LAW THAT DISCRETION LIES WITH THE TRIBUNAL TO AD MIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONCE THE TRIBUNA L AFFIRMS THE OPINION THAT DOING SO WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. THIS CAN BE DONE EVEN W HEN APPLICATION IS FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE A PPEAL AND IT NEED NOT TO BE A SUO MOTU ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. TH E AFORESAID RULE IS MADE ENABLING THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ITS DISCRETION IF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS THE VIEW THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DO SUB STANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THE P ROCEDURE IS HANDMADE OF JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHOKED ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME INADVERTENT ERROR OR OMI SSION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE AT TH E APPROPRIATE STAGE. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PARTY I NTENDING TO LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO LEAD SUCH AN EVIDENCE AND THAT THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE MATERIAL BEARING ON THE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ENDS OF JU STICE DEMAND ADMISSION OF SUCH AN EVIDENCE THE TRIBUNAL CA N PASS AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT. 13. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A ND RELYING ON AFORESAID DECISION WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO T O DECIDE ALL THE ISSUE INVOLVED AFRESH. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTE D TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND EXAMI NED THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL D ATED 12. 10. 2012 AND ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE AO MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER MAKING SUCH ENQUIRIES AS NECESSARY AS DEEM FIT AND SUBMIT FURTHER EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY ENTIRE ASSE SSMENT IS SET- 10 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. NEVERTHELESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE IN THE ENQUIRY AND ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCES AS THE ASSESSEE WOU LD LIKE AND AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. ITA NO. 444/DEL/2018 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM BHAJ G OSWAMI AY 2014-15 : - 14. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI RAM GOSWAMI THEREFORE OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO. 445/DEL/20 18 WILL APPLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM BHAJ GOSWAMI FOR AY 2014-15. ACCORDINGLY ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. NEVERTHELESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERAT E IN THE ENQUIRY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISH NECESSARY EV IDENCES AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE AND AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. 15. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.2019 SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (O.P. MEEN A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/11/2019 *KAVITA ARORA 11 ITA NOS . 444 & 445/DEL/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI