DCIT, Delhi v. M/s Flair Builders (P.) Ltd., New Delhi

ITSSA 107/DEL/2008 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10720116 RSA 2008
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 107/DEL/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Delhi
Respondent M/s Flair Builders (P.) Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-01-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMEBR I.T.(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.92 TO 14.2.2001 DCIT CIR 11 (1) R.NO. 311A C.R. BLDG. I.P. ESTATE. VS. M/S. FLAIR BUILDERS (P) LTD. SPACE NO. UG-1 M-51 G.K.-MARKET NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO. 196/DEL-2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.92 TO 14.2. 2001 FLAIR BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT CIR. 11(1) SPACE NO. UG-1 DELHI. M-51 G.K.-1 MARKET NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH GUPTA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL SHRI R.P. M ALL ADVOCATE. ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 PASSED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD STARTI NG FROM 1.4.92 AND ENDING ON 14.2.2001. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE IN THE REVENUES AP PEAL ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION BEARING NO. 196/D/2009. IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 2 2. IN THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS PLEADED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF ACT BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICES AND NO SATISF ACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 27 TH AUGUST 1991 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT M-51 GREATER KAILASH-1 MARKET NEW DELHI. AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN AND THE RETURNS FROM ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2001-02 WERE PROCESSED U/S 143 (I) OF THE ACT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI ASHISH MUNJAL ON 14 TH FEBRUARY 2001. ACCORDING TO THE AO AN INFORMATIO N FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158 BD IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN BY THE DCIT CENTRAL CSIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA ON 20 TH / 24 TH DECEMBER 2002. NOTICE U/S 158BD/158BC WAS ISSUED ON 18 TH SEPTEMBER 2003. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE ASSTT. OR DER THAT NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST AT M-51 GREATER KAILASH-1 MARKET HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH PERSON AT M-51 GREATER KAILASH-1 IS AVAILABLE . THEREAFTER THE AO HAD SERVED THE NO TICE ON THE DIRECTOR SHRI SURINDER KAPOOR AT HIS RESIDENCE AT RDC-77 GHAZIABAD UPON 20 TH OCTOBER 2003. THE AO HAS FRAMED BLOCK ASSTT. U/S 158 BD READ WITH SECTIO N 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHEREBY HE DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD AT RS. 76 04 911/-. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSTT. ORDER ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT TOOK 14 GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON PAGES NO. 2 & 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN GROUND NO. 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 3 PLEADED THAT ACIT HAD NOT RECORDED ANY NOTE OF SATI SFACTION BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD AS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMITY HOTELS PVT. LTD. 272 ITR 72 (DELHI). IT WAS CONTEND ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO OF SHRI ASHISH MUNJAL IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT HAS ONLY SUPPLIED INFORMATION TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. HE LEFT IT FOR THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIAT ING PROCEEDING U/S 158BD WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMEN TS IT IS THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WHO HAS TO RECORD A SATISFACTION EXHIBITING THE FACTS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME MATERIAL WAS FOUND SHOWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF SOME OTHER PERSON UPON WHOM NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AN D THEREFORE PROCEEDING AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON HAS TOBE CARRIED OUT U/S 158 BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IF HE HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON THEN HE WILL PROCEED U/S 158BD OTHERWISE HE IS REQUIRED TO SUPPLY THOSE MATERIAL TO THE AO W HO HAS A JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPHASISED THAT REC ORDING OF THE SATISFACTION AT THE END OF AO WHO WAS PROCESSING THE RETURN OF SEAR CHED PERSON IS A MANDATORY STEP FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON UPO N WHOM NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION ASSESSEE HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341 AND FOLLOWING OTHER DECISIONS :- (A) AMITY HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 272 IR 72 (DELHI ) (B) JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL VS. UOI 193 CTR 730 (DELHI) (C) SUMAN DHANJI ZALTE VS. ACIT 72 ITD 132 (PUNE) (D) VED PRAKASH SANJAY KUMAR V. ACIT 76 ITD 107 (CH D.) IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 4 (E) DR. AJAY KUMR AGARWAL V. ACIT 71 TTJ 445 (ALLAH ABAD) (F) CHHABRIA MKTG. LTD. V. DCIT 81 ITD 314 (MUMBAI) 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF AS SESSEE. HE HAS REPRODUCED THE LETTER WRITTEN BY DCIT CENTRAL 1 LUDHIANA W HO HAS A JURISDICTION OVER SHRI ASHISH MUNJAL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER CALLED FOR A RE MAND REPORT FROM THE AO. ON A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LD . CIT(A) REACHED AT A CONCLUSION THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. ACCORDINGLY HE QUASHED THE ASSTT. ORDER. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSER VED THAT NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS EFFECTED UPON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TAKING UP THE PROCEEDING U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT. 6. LD. DR HAS APPLIED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE GRO UND THAT HE HAS WRITTEN TO THE AO FOR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION WHETHER ANY SATISF ACTION WAS RECORDED OTHER THAN THE ONE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE AO AT LUDHIANA WHILE PROCESSING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF LD. DR. HE POINTED OUT THAT C ASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 19 TH JUNE 2009. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF OP PORTUNITIES TO ASCERTAIN THIS FACT IN THE PAST. LD. COMMISSIONER HAS NOT PASSED T HE ORDER ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM RATHER HE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. SHRI SANJAY PANDEY AO ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. THERE FORE THERE IS NO REASON TO ADJOURN THE HEARING TIME AND AGAIN. ON PERUSAL OF T HE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 17 TH JUNE 2009 AND HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUES T OF ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER IT WAS LISTED ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER 2009. LD. DR SOUGHT TIME TO GO THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 5.11.2009 AGAIN LD. DR SOUGHT TIME HEARING WAS ADJ OURNED TO 16.12.2009.AGAIN LD. IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 5 DR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR 25 TH JANUARY 2010. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2008. ALMOST MORE THAN ONE YEAR HAS EXPIRED IF THE LD. FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED ANY FINDING FACTUALLY INCORRECT THEN THE D EPARTMENT COULD HAVE OBTAINED THE MATERIAL WHICH CAN EXHIBIT THE FACTUALLY INACCURACY IN THE FINDING OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. TO OUR MIND SUFFICIENT TIME WAS AVAILABL E WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO GIVE MORE ADJOURNMENTS. THE PRAYER OF THE LD. DR FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING IS REJECTED. 7. ON MERIT LD. DR REFERRING TO THE LETTER DATED 20 TH /24 TH DECEMBER 2002 WRITTEN BY DCIT CIRCLE I LUDHIANA REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON PAGES NO. 16-17 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT IF PARAGRAPH 2 OF TH IS LETTER IS PERUSED THEN IT WOULD INDICATE THAT LD. DCIT LUDHIANA HAS SPECIFICALLY PO INTED OUT THE SEIZED MATERIAL RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE INDICATING UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND THEREFORE THIS PARAGRAPH IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS SATISFACTION OF THE AO WHO H AS PASSED THE ASSTT. ORDER IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS WAY HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED T O QUASH THE ASSTT. ORDER. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTE D THAT IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS LETTER LD. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 LUDHIANA HAS CATE GORICALLY LEFT IT TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT (SU PRA) APART FROM THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(A). IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 6 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 158BD HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON TH E CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE IT IS SALUTARY UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SECTION. 158BD WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH R ESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UN DER SECTION 132A THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSE TS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED [UNDER SECTION 158BC] AGAINST SUCH OTHER PE RSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 9. THE BARE READING OF THIS SECTION PROVIDE THAT TH E AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD BE SATISFIED IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING CON DITIONS :- I) THERE SHOULD BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 158BD RELATABLE TO THE ASSETS OR BOOKS / DOCUMENTS FOUND SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED II) THERE SHOULD BE A FINDING BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN SUCH ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SEARCHED PE RSON III) THAT SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG TO THE PER SON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED. 10. AFTER SATISFYING THE ABOVE CONDITIONS THE AO W OULD PROCEED TAKING ACTION U/S 158BD AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. HE WILL ISSUE A NO TICE U/S 158BD IF HE HAS A JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON OTHERWISE HE WI LL TRANSMIT THE RECORD TO THE AO WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON. IT INDICATE THAT THE AO ON THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION ABOUT THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 7 DISCERNING FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THERE IS NO DI SPUTE TO THIS EXTENT BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND ABOVE OBSERVATIO NS ARE IN THE LINE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHE SHWARI (SUPRA) AND THE OTHER DECISIONS NOTICED BY US WHILE TAKING NOTE OF ASSESS EES CONTENTION BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE NEXT QUESTION FOR OU R ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE NARRATIONS AVAILABLE IN PARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF THE LETT ER WRITTEN BY DCIT CIRCLE I LUDHIANA CAN BE CONSTRUED AS SATISFACTION OF THE DC IT FOR INITIATING ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THIS LETTER READ AS UNDER :- TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE 11(2) C.R. BUILDING I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI-2. SIR SUB : INFORMATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 158BD IN THE CASE OF M/S. FLAIR BUILDERS (P) LTD.:-REGARDING A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF I .T. ACT 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHISH MUNJAL ON 14.2.2001 BY DDIT UNIT-VII(4) NEW DELHI. THE FOLLOWING PREMISES WERE COVERED A) RESIDENCE OF SH. ASHISH MUNJAL S-23 GREATER KA ILASH NEW DELHI. B) OFFICE PREMISES OF SH. ASHISH MUNJAL AT M/S HER O CYCLES LTD. UNIT-II SAHIBABAD GHAZIABAD. C) FARM HOUSE NO. 17 VILLAGE SATBARI MEHRAULI NE W DELHI. THE FARM HOUSE IS OWNED BY M/S. FLAIR BUILDER (P) L TD. HAVING OFFICE AT SPACE NUMBER UG-1 M 51 GREATER KAILASH-1 MARKET NEW DELHI. THE RETURN OF INCOME FRO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 HA S BEEN FILED BY THE COMPANY IN YOUR OFFICE ON 31.10.2001 VIDE RECEIPT N O. 2838. IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 8 2. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT FARM HOUSES CERT AIN PAPERS BILLS CHALLANS AND REGISTERS INDICATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION O F THE FARM HOUSE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE DDIT HAS COMMENTED THAT TOTAL COST OF C ONSTRUCTION AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL WORKS OUT TO RS. 98.41 LACS WHEREAS ONLY A N EXPENDITURE OF RS. 22 LACS HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COM PANY. DDIT HAS HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 78.41 LACS REPRESENTS THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT TO TBE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. FLAIR BUILDER (P) LTD. FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. 3. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT ([P AGE 34 TO 56 SHOWING ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED FROM FARM HOUSE AND PAGE 67 SHOW ING CONCLUSION DRAWN BY DDIT) IS ANNEXED ALONGWITH THIS LETTER FOR YOUR REA DY RE4FERENCE. 4. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INITIATE BLOCK ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF I.T. ACT 1961 IN THIS CASE AFTER RECORDING YOUR SATISFACTION. 5. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS CASE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE UNDERSIGNED AT THE EARLIEST. 6. KINDLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. 11. THE EXPRESSION SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN DEFI NED IN THE ACT. ACCORDING TO ITS DICTIONARY MEANING THE EXPRESSION SATISFIED HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN FREE FROM ANXIETY DOUBT PERPLEXITY SUSPENSE OR UNCERTAINTY . IT IS SYNONYMOUS WITH CONVINCE THE UNDERSTANDING OR CONVINCE BEYOND REASONABLE DOU BT. ONE HAS TO BE RELIEVED FROM ALL DOUBTS OR UNCERTAINTIES WHILE EXPOUNDING H IS OPINION ABOUT A PARTICULAR FACT OR A SITUATION. IF WE EXAMINE PARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF TH IS LETTER ALONG WITH THE CONCLUSION REFERRED IN 4 & 6 THEN IT WOULD INDICATE THAT IN PA RAGRAPH 2 LD. AO HAS NARRATED CERTAIN FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY DD IT. IT NOWHERE DEMONSTRATE THE INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND AT THE END OF LD. D CIT CIRCLE 1 FOR EXPRESSING ANY OPINION RATHER IN PARAGRAPH 4 HE HAS SPECIFICALLY LEFT IT OPEN TO THE AO OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FOR RECORDING OF HIS SATISFACTION FOR INIT IATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 9 RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON FOR TAKIN G PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 158B OF THE ACT AND THE ASSTT. ORDER I S NOT SUSTAINABLE. SINCE WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. THEREFORE WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO OT HER ASPECTS WHETHER NOTICE U/S 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC WAS PROPERLY SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE STAGE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WOULD COME ONLY WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD HAS INITIATED ON VALID FOUNDATION. THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT UPON THIS ASPECT IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDING U /S 158BD. 12. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT. S INCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE QUASHING OF THE ASSTT. ORDER THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO RECORD A FINDING ON MERIT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS. HENCE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AR E IN A WAY INFRUCTUOUS. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJE CTION ARE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.1.2010. [G.S. PANNU] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA DATED: COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT IT(SS) NO. 107/DEL/08 AND CO NO. 196/DEL/09 10 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT