O.P. Kant, A.M.:— These appeals consists of cross appeals of the assessee and revenue and are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-II New Delhi in the case of Satkar Roadlines Private Limited and Shivansh Advertising and Publication Private Limited respectively for Assessment Year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal of the assessee and Revenue and facts of both the cases being identical, all the 4 appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.

I.T.A. No. 2170/Del/2014 for AY: 2009-10

2. Now we take up the appeal in ITA No. 2170/Del/2014, the grounds of which are reproduced as under:

1. That on the facts andcircumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax Appealshas failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Ld AO u/s 144 is illegal, bad in law and wrong on facts. The additions made are unjust, unlawful and arbitrary and are made against the principles of natural justice.

2. That on the facts andcircumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax Appealshas failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was time barred/not served on the appellant and hence illegal and bad in law, therefore, the assessment order passed thereof, is also illegal and bad in law.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT Appeals has erred in not admitting the additional evidences i.e. Cash Flow Statement, Ledger, Cash Book, Bank Book, Stock Register, Vouchers/Bills, Details of party wise purchases, purchase return and sales returns, Bank Statements, Confirmations and Affidavits etc. tiled during the appellate proceedings.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld CIT Appeal has erred in holding the conclusion that the ‘audited books and transactions through bank’ notwithstanding, the book results are required to be rejected, since the narrations are artificial, sham and not reflective of the actual business/commercial transactions. However, the Ld. CIT Appeals still relying on these books for the purpose of calculating/confirming addition of Rs. 43,684/-.

5. (a) That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT Appeal has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 43,684/- as unexplained Investment/expenditure, ignoring the fact that the same are fully reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant company.

(b) That the Ld CIT Appeal did not give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant company and also wrongly calculated/confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,684/- being sum total of the peak of the financial transactions recorded in the cash book (i.e. Rs. 5,40,547/-) and bank book (i.e. Rs. 2,80,131/-) for the year under consideration (after reducing the corresponding opening balance of cash in hand as on 01.04.2008 i.e. Rs. 4,96,863/- and cash deposit into bank i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/- respectively).

(c) That the Ld. CIT Appeal has ignored the concept of real income and wrongly calculated/confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,684/- without granting the credit of peak of financial transactions as per the cash book and bank book of the preceding years. The additions have been sustained with preset mind of the Ld. CIT(A) and her order is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion, even when no adverse material is there.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in concluding the alleged cash payment of Rs. 80,000/- to ‘Phoenix Data Services Pvt. Ltd.’ as unexplained/unaccounted investments.

7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the various observations and findings of the Ld. CIT Appeals in the impugned appellant order is irrelevant and vitiated in the law.

8. That the Appellant craves the right to amend, append, delete any or all grounds of appeal.

3. The assessee also filed additional ground before the Tribunal, which are as under:

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(a)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the CIT/Assessing Officer was not justified to ignore that assessment u/s. 153C f the Income Tax Act be restricted to assessment in respect of seized documents of incriminating nature for the year under consideration and in absence of any incriminating seized document assessment framed u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act for the year under consideration, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(b)

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the cse, learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in not quashing the impugned assessment framed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [notice issued u/s 143(2)] whereas the subject years falls u/s. 153C and no assessment is framed there-under.

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(c)

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciated that the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law the assessment framed is against the statutory case and the provisions of the Act and without complying the procedures prescribed under Income Tax Act i.e. mandatory requirement of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person(s) and as such the assessment being bad in law deserves to be quashed.

4. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’) was carried out in the case of Sh. BK Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra, and Madhusudhan Buildcon Private Limited on 20/10/2008 and in the course of the search action, certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09. For the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 06/07/2010 requiring the assessee to file its return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 09/09/2010 declaring nil income. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 04/08/2010 was issued and served fixing the hearing on 10/08/2010. However, no compliance was made. Due to change of the Assessing Officer, another notices under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Act dated 5/11/2010 along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee fixing the date on 10/11/2010. According to the AO, no compliance of the notices were made and the assessment being barred by limitation on 31/12/2010, the Assessing Officer on the basis of the material available on record, assessed the income at Rs. 10,61,130/- under section 144 of the Act, increasing the income by 30% over the income for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

5. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on legal grounds and on the merit of the additions. The legal ground raised included as notice issued under section 143(2) was barred by limitation and the assessment order passed was in violation of the principle of natural Justice. The grounds on merit included ignoring concept of real income and not allowing the telescoping of the income by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering submission of the assessee confirmed the legal grounds, however, on merit of the addition allowed relief and out of the addition of Rs. 10,61,130/- sustained addition of Rs. 43,684/- computed on the basis of the peak credit appearing in bank book and cash book produced by the assessee before her.

6. Aggrieved, with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal.

7. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee, submitted that additional grounds of appeal taken by the assessee, a purely legal in nature and the omission of the grounds from the appeal was neither willful nor unreasonable and no new facts are required to be admitted for deciding the additional ground, same might be admitted.

7.1 On the other hand learned CIT (DR) opposed the admission of additional ground.

7.2 We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of admissibility of the additional ground. It is settled law that the ground which is purely legal in nature and no new facts for adjudication of that ground are required, can be raised before any appellate authorities for the first time. We find that in the additional ground raised before us, the assessee has challenged jurisdiction under section 144/143(3) of the Act, which being purely legal in nature, we admit the same.

8. The Ld AR of the assessee preferred first to argue the additional ground No. 2(b) and submitted that in the case of the assessee, satisfaction note was recorded on 5th July, 2010 and it is to be assumed that on almost the same date, the material belonging to the assessee had been handed over by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee company, therefore, following the findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Jasjeet Singh in ITA No. 337/2015, the six Assessment Years for reassessment under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act, would be six Assessment Years preceding the Assessment Year in which the satisfaction note was recorded or material was handed over to the AO of the assessee. He further submitted that since in the case satisfaction note was recorded in Assessment Year 2011-12, the preceding six Assessment Years for reassessment proceedings under section 153C would be from Assessment Year 2005-06 to Assessment Year 2010-11. He further submitted that since the Assessment Year under consideration should have been completed under the provisions of section 153C read with one section 153A of the Act and not under section 144 of the Act as framed by the Assessing Officer, and therefore assessment completed under section 144 of the Act being illegal, required to be quashed. In support of proposition, he also relied on the judgment dated 28/07/2015 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aakash Arogya Mandir Private limited in ITA No. 509, 510 and 513/2015, decision dated 06/01/2015 of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Sh. Bhupinderpal Singh Sarna in ITA No. 3037 and 3695/Del/2013 and decision dated 14/11/2014 of the ITAT in the case of Inlay Marketing Private Limited in ITA No. 4197to 4202/Del/2012.

9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that proviso below the section 153C of the Act, which has construed the reference to the date of initiation of search under section 132 of the Act in case of persons other than the person searched, as the date of receiving of books of accounts or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, was with reference to second proviso of subsection (1) of section 153A and which was for the purpose of deciding the abetment of proceedings pending as on that date. He submitted that as far as the Assessment Years involved for reassessment proceedings under section 153C as well as 153A, are governed by section 153A(1) of the Act and according to which the six Assessment Years are reckoned, as six Assessment Years immediately preceding the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. Since in the present case, search in the case of the assessees, at whose premises the documents belonging to the assessee have been seized, was conducted on 20/10/2008, the Assessment Years from 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2008-09 were only covered under 153C proceedings.

10. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The Tribunal in the case of Inlay Marketing Private Limited (supra) has decided the same legal issue and held that in case of person other than searched person the six immediately preceding Assessment Years for reassessment has to be from the Assessment Years in which satisfaction was recorded or seized document are handed over to the AO of the such other person. The relevant paras (31 & 32) of the aforesaid decision are reproduced as under:

“31. In view of above decision and as per letter and spirit of section 153(1) of the Act, we are inclined to hold that since in this case satisfaction was recorded on 5.7.2010 and notice under Section 153C was issued on 6.7.2010, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Assessing Officer of such other person other than searched has taken over the possession of the seized document on 5.7.2010. Accordingly, as per section 153A(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice under Section 153A of the Act for the previous year in which the search is conducted and the purpose of section 153C of the Act on the date on which the document is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person for six AYs immediately preceding the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition or handing over of document or material is made. In the case in hand, the relevant date of handing over may easily be inferred from satisfaction note i.e. 5.7.2010 and, thus, relevant previous year is 2010-11 and obviously the Assessment Year would be AY 2011-12. Six preceding previous years and relevant Assessment Year would be as under:—

“Previous Year Assessment Year 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 2010-11 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 2009-10 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 2008-09 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 2007-08 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 2006-07 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 2005-06

32. In view of above, we are inclined to hold that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 153C of the Act dated 5.7.2010 for 2003-04 and 2004-05 on 6.7.2010 which is clearly barred by limitation. Therefore, the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act by the revenue cannot be sustained because it is legally not valid as the conditions laid down for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act have not been fulfilled and the same is barred by limitation for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. In view of above discussion, we quash the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act and consequently, the assessment completed in pursuance to such notice are also quashed for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 as the same are barred by limitation and also not initiated properly without having valid assumption of jurisdiction as required u/s 153C of the Act.

11. Similar view has been expressed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shree Jasjeet Singh (supra). The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the action of the ITAT in treating in the case of person other than searched, the date of satisfaction note prepared as the date of search for calculating the Assessment Years for the purpose of reassessment as provided in section 153A(1) of the Act. The relevant para of the judgment are as under:

“3. The question raised before the ITAT was with reference to the first proviso to Section 153C (1). The ITAT has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ssp Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 252 CTR (Del) 291, which in para 14 held that while in the case of the searched person, the date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any Assessment Year within the period of the six Assessment Years shall abate shall be the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or the requisition under Section 132A, in the case of the other person (like the Assessee in the present case) “such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six Assessment Years will be examined with reference to such date”.

4. Although, the ITAT has also referred to its own decision in the case of DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd., which decision is pending consideration in ITA No. 585 of 2013 in this Court, in which a question of law has been framed, the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra) puts the matter beyond all doubt. In addition, the Court has been shown by learned counsel for the Respondent a circular dated 31st March 2014 issued by the CBDT, containing the guidelines regarding Section 153C of the Act. Para 2.5 of the said circular clarifies as under:

“The AO of the other person assumes jurisdiction under Section 153C with the receipt of the relevant seized material from the AO of the searched person. Also, a copy of the satisfaction received from the AO of the searched person in this regard would enable him to proceed further in the case of the other person under Section 153C. Though there is no statutory requirement for the AO of such other person to record any satisfaction/reason before issuing notice under Section 153C and proceeding further, considering the above aspects, it is advisable for maintaining institutional memory that the AO records receipt of the seized material and the satisfaction from the AO of the searched person and such recording/noting may be kept in the assessment folder of such ITA No. 337/2015 Page 4 of 4 other person. In case, the AO of the searched person exercises jurisdiction over the other person also, appropriate referencing should be made in the relevant assessment records of such other person.

5. It may be noted that in the present case satisfaction note was prepared by the AO on 25th February 2010. Consequently, the finding of the ITAT in the present case that the assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 was not valid, calls for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

12. In the other decisions cited by the assessee similar findings have been given. Thus in view of the facts of the case, respectfully following the ratio laid down in above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that material belonging to the assessee, which was seized in the search proceedings of Dhingra Group of cases was handed over to the AO of the assessee on the date on which satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the searched person i.e. 5th July, 2010 and accordingly the six preceding Assessment Years from the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the assessee would be Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11. We, accordingly, hold that the relevant assessments which could be reassessed as per section 153C r.w.s. 153A(1) in the case of the assessee would be from AYs 2005-6 to 2010-11, thus the assessment completed under section 144 of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2009-10, is illegal and invalid as same should have been completed under section 153C of the Act.

13. Since we have already held the entire proceedings under section 144 of the Act as illegal, we do not propose to adjudicate other grounds of the assessee.

14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

I.T.A. No. 3305/Del/2014 of AY: 2009-10

15. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 3305/Del/2014 raising following grounds of appeal:

i. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,17,446/- out of total addition of Rs. 10,61,130/- made by AO by increasing 30% of the income as taken last year without examining and adjudicating upon merits of the case.

ii. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to total sum of Rs. 43,684/- by adopting the peak amounts of Cash Book & Bank Book, after reducing the respective opening balances.

iii. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in adopting the working of peak amounts submitted by the appellant, whereas the CIT(A) has herself recorded reasons for not admitting additional evidence, and as such rejected the additional evidence.

iv. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in relying on Cash Book and Bank Book for telescoping, whereas CIT(A) has herself recorded reasons in the appellate order for confirming the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee.

(a) The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

16. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed out that the present appeal having tax effect below Rs. 10 Lacs, has been preferred by the Revenue in violation of CBDT circular No. 21/2005 dated 10/12/2015, hence not maintainable.

17. The Ld. CIT(DR) did not dispute the above submission on the preliminary objection raised by the Ld. AR, however placed reliance on the assessment order in support of the ground raised in the appeal.

18. We find that in the present appeal the tax effect involved on the deletions of additions challenged is below Rs. 10 Lacs and, therefore, in view of the CBDT circular this appeal should have been withdrawn by the Department, hence it is not maintainable. We also find that the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer has already been held by us as illegal in ITA No. 2170/Del/2014 the subsequent proceedings in such illegal order also cannot survive.

19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as such.

I.T.A. No. 2172/Del/2014 for AY: 2009-10

20. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee in appeal No. 2172/Del/2014 raising following grounds of appeal;

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT Appeals has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Ld AO u/s 144 is illegal, bad in law and wrong on facts. The additions made are unjust, unlawful and arbitrary and are made against the principles of natural justice.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT Appeals has failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was time barred/not served on the appellant and hence illegal and bad in law, therefore, the assessment order passed thereof, is also illegal and bad in law.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld CIT Appeals has erred in not admitting the additional evidences i.e. Cash Flow Statement, Ledger, Cash Book, Bank Book, Stock Register, Vouchers/Bills, Details of party wise purchases and sales returns. Bank Statements, Confirmations and Affidavits etc. filed during the appellate p roceedings.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld CIT Appeal has erred in holding the conclusion that the ‘audited books and transactions through bank’ notwithstanding the book results are required to be rejected, since the narrations are artificial, sham and not reflective of the actual business/commercial transactions. However, the Ld. CIT Appeals still relying on these books for the purpose of calculating/confirming addition of Rs. 3,38,664/-.

5. (a) That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT Appeal has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,38,664/- as unexplained Investment/expenditure, ignoring the fact that the same are duly reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant company.

(b) That the Ld CIT Appeal did not give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant company and also wrongly calculated/confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,38,664/- being sum total of the peak of the financial transactions recorded in the cash book (i.e. Rs. 465.326/-) and bank book (i.e. Rs. 3,33,877/-) for the year under consideration (after reducing the corresponding opening balance of cash in hand as on 01.04.2008 i.e. Rs. 1,70,539/- and cash deposit into bank i.e. Rs. 2,90,000/- respectively).

(c) That the Ld. CIT Appeal has ignored the concept of real income and wrongly calculated/confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,38,664/- without granting the credit of peak of financial transactions as per the cash book and bank book of the preceding years. The additions have been sustained wdth preset mind of the Ld. CIT(A) and her order is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion, even when no adverse material is there.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in concluding the alleged cash payment of Rs. 90,000/- to “Phoenix Data Services Pvt. Ltd.” as unexplained/unaccounted investments.

7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the various observations and findings of appeal the Ld. CIT Appeals in the impugned appellant order is irrelevant and vitiated in the law.

8. That the Appellant craves The right to amend, append, delete any or all grounds of appeal.

21. The assessee has also raised additional ground identical to the additional ground raised in ITA 2170/Del/2014, which are as under:

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(a)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the CIT/AO was not justified to ignore that assessment u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act be restricted to assessment in respect of seized documents of incriminating nature for the year under consideration and in absence of any incriminating seized document, assessment framed u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act for the year under consideration, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(b)

That on the fact sand in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the impugned assessment framed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [notice issued u/s 143(2)] whereas the subject year falls u/s. 153C and no assessment is famed there-under.

Additional Ground of Appeal No. 2(c)

That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law the assessment framed is against the statutory provisions of the Act and without complying the procedures prescribed under Income Tax Act i.e. mandatory requirement of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person(s) and as such the assessment being bad in law deserves to be quashed.

22. The facts of the case are identical to the case of Satkar Roadlines Private Limited in ITA No. 2170/Del/2014. In this case also on the basis of certain documents belonging to the assessee, seized in the course of search proceeding on 20/10/2008 at the premises of Sh. BK Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudhan Buildcon Private Limited, proceedings under section 153C of the Act were taken up for Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2008-09 and for the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. 2009-10 the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, which is challenged by the assessee in additional ground raised as illegal.

23. As the facts and circumstances of the case, being identical to the case of Satkar Roadlines Private Limited in ITA No. 2170/Del/2014 and the additional ground raised is also identical, after hearing both the parties on the issue of additional ground, we admit the same.

24. Since the issue raised in the additional ground is identical to the additional ground raised in the case of Satkar Roadlines Private Limited in ITA No. 2170/Del/2014, the additional ground raised in the case in hand is also allowed in favour of the assessee and the reassessment is held to be illegal and invalid.

25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

I.T.A. No. 2656/Del/2014 for AY: 2009-10

26. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2656/Del/2014 raising following grounds:

i. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 79,61,336/- out of total addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made by AO by increasing 30% of the income as taken last year without examining and adjudicating upon merits of the case.

ii. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred inlaw and on facts of the case in deleting the addition to total sum of Rs. 3,38,664/- by adopting the peak amounts of Cash Book & Bank Book, after reducing the respective opening balances.

iii. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in adopting the working of peak amounts submitted by the appellant, whereas the CIT(A) has herself recorded reasons for not admitting additional evidence, and as such rejected the additional evidence.

iv. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in relying on Cash Book and Bank Book for telescoping, whereas CIT(A) has herself recorded reasons in the appellate order for confirming the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee.

(a) The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

27. We find that the assessment in question has already been held by us as illegal and invalid in ITA No. 2172/Del/2014, the subsequent proceedings against that assessment also cannot survive and therefore grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

28. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

29. In summary, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.