M/s. Indication Instruments Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 209/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5093 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Source of fund; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 147; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3513/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2002-03 DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI VS. M/S INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD., B-23, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI 110 048 (PAN: AAACI1204M) AND C.O. NO. 209/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010) A.Y. 2002-03 M/S INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LTD. B-23, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI 110 048 (PAN: AAACI1204M) (APPELLANT) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), C.R. BLDG. NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. LKS DAHIYA, SR. D.R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) DATED 6.5.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 4 6,72,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE OUTSIDE OF BOOKS FOR PURCHASE OF PLO T. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER URGED THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 2 LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 12,77,200/- AND ` 10,00, 000 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. 3. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON MANAV RACHNA GROUP AT FARIDABAD ON 4.8.2005. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SH. NAVNEET JHANB AT H.NO. 1 260, SECTOR-14, FARIDABAD, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SALE OF IN DUSTRIAL PLOTS AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI, DISTT. FARIDABAD WERE FOUND AND S EIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES, IT WAS GATHERED THAT THERE WAS A LAND AT VILLAGE JHARSENTLI WHICH BELONGED TO ONE KOLKATA BASED COMPA NY M/S INDO AMERICAN ELECTRICALS LTD.. THE COMPANY WAS REFERRED TO BIFR AND IT WAS DECIDED BY THE COMPANY BOARD THAT THE LAND AT JHARSE NTLI MAY BE SOLD FOR ` 1.5 CRORES FROM M/S RELIANCE ESTATE AGENCY (IN WHICH SH. NAVNEET JHANB HAPPENS TO BE A PARTNER). THE DOCUMENTS SEI ZED FROM RESIDENCE OF SHRI NAVNEET JHANB SHOWS THAT THE LAN D WAS SUB-DIVIDED INTO INDUSTRIAL PLOTS AND WAS SOLD AT A CASH PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE ` 1.5 CRORES. FROM THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED IT CAME OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PLOT B-1, MEASURING 6048 SQYD S. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OPINED THAT FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDE RATION OF ` 66,52,800/-, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF ` 19,80,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF ` 46,72,800/- HAS BEEN PAID BY WA Y OF CASH. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAID IN CHEU QE TALLIES WITH THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, SO HE INFER RED THAT AMOUNT MENTIONED IN CASH MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN PAID. H E HELD THAT ONE PART OF THE SEIZED PAPER IS FOUND TO BE TRUE. HENCE THERE IS NO OTHER PART OF THE SEIZED PAPER IS INCORRECT. HENCE HE PROCEEDED TO ADD A SUM OF ` 46,72,800/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THERE ARE NOTINGS ON ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 3 PAGED 55 OF ANNEXURE-2 WHEREIN THE TOTAL PAYMENTS AR E RECORDED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 79,30,000/- AS AGAINST ` 66,52,800/ - RECORDED ON PAGE 61 OF ANNEXURE A-1. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AMOUNT I N EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 12,77,200/-. AS SESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS ALSO WORKING OF INTEREST TO THE EXTE NT OF ` 8,45,000/- ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE N OTINGS ON LOOSE SHEETS ARE MERE PROJECTION AND NOT ACTUAL. ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS AND ADDED A SUM OF ` 12,77,2 00/- AS PAYMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3.1 FURTHER ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS OF LOOSE SHEET S ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED ` 10,00,000/- RECEIVED INTEREST ON THE PAYMENTS MADE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. 3.3 AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ` 46,72,8 00/-, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER:- THUS, THE WHOLE SITUATION CAN BE SUMMARIZED LIKE T HIS:- 1. NO DOCUMENT INDICATING ANY PAYMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS MUCH LESS THE PAYMENT AS MENTIONED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. 2. NO SUCH DOCUMENT AS INDICATED ABOVE WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF SELLER. 3. THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF ONE MR. NAVNEET JHAMB AND HE HAS CLEARLY DENIED THAT ANY CON TENT OF ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 4 THE DOCUMENT SUGGEST ANY CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY TH E PURCHASER TO SELLER. 4. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER. 5. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID WAS HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED / BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6. NOTHING CONCRETE AND CONCLUSIVE CAN BE MADE OUT FRO M THE DOCUMENTS SEIXZED. 7. THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT IS NEITHER SIGNED BY THE ASSES SEE (I.E. PURCHASER) NOR BY THE SELLER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED U/S 147 AND PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF WAS UPON ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PRADEEP GUPTA. BUT A SSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO C ORROBORATE HIS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT PAYMENT IN CASH BY THE ASSESS EE. 8. THE DOCUMENT WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT SPECIALLY IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY CORROBORATE MATERIAL IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T,. VS. GIRISH CHAUDH AR, SUPRA. IT IS NOT COMING OUT WHO HAS GIVEN CASH TO WHOM; THE RE IS NO MENTION OF EVIDENCES. IT IS NOT COMING OUT WHO HAS PR EPARED THE PAPERS AND THESE PAPERS BELONG TO WHOM. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE RECENT JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PRADEEP GUPTA, 303 ITR 95, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHICH HE HAS NOT DISCHARGED WITH THE HELP OF COGENT MATERIAL. ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 5 IN THIS CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXCEPT THESE DOCU MENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE NOTHING ELSE IS BROUGHT O N RECORD. NOTHING IS COMING OUT FORM THESE DOCUMENTS AND NOTHIN G IS CLEAR WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AND EVEN FROM THE PE RUSAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THESE DOCUMENTS NOTHING CONCRETE CA N BE MADE OUT. THE PRIMARY BURDEN WAS UPON THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO SHOW WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCES THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE SOME PAYMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT COMPANYS ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THIS F ACT IS NEVER DISPUTED. APART FROM THESE DOCUMENTS, NOTHIN G HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGAT ION THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 46,72,8 00/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DENIED ALL THESE AL LEGATIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALS O REQUESTED FOR ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN S UPPORT OF THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT OF ` 46,72,800/-. BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RESPO NDED TO THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SETTLED POSITION O F LAW, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HOLD THAT ADDITION OF ` 46,7 2,800/- IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINE D AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3.4 AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ` 12,77,0 00/- AND ` 10,00,000/-, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS, AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED TH AT IN THE SAID ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 6 DOCUMENT (I.E. PAGE 61 OF ANNEXURE A-1), IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ANY WHERE ON THE SCRIBBLING WHICH IS THE SOLE BASIS OF MAKING THE ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. IT IS NOWHERE COMING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE WRITER OF THIS DOCUMENT. RATHER FROM THE ROUG H CALCULATIONS, AT THE BEST AN INFERENCE COULD BE DRA WN THAT THE WRITER OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS MADE SUCH PLANNING TO P AY OUT SOME AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPLE SINCE THE ESTIMA TED AMOUNT OF PROFIT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ` 12,77,000/-. WE CAN FURTHER MAKE AN ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF SCRIBBLING MADE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE SHOWING SOM E CALCULATIONS MADE ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE WHERE IN THE ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT AND TENTATIVE PROFIT HAS BE EN INCREASED WITH THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST. IT WOULD SIMPLY MEAN SHOWING THAT THE INTEREST WAS NOTHING BUT INCOME OF THE WRI TER OF THIS DOCUMENT. THUS, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT EXCESS PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LOAN IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE AND IS SELF CONTRADICTORY . WHEN THIS DOCUMENT WAS CONFRONTED TO MR. NAVNEET JHAMB DURING RECORDING OF HIS STATEMENT, INCLUDING PG. NO. 55 OF ANNEXURE A- 1, HE HAS CLEARLY DENIED ANY PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSE E ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN OR INTEREST TO MR. NAVNEET JHAMB. TH US THERE WAS NO BASIS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED WIT H HIS IMAGINATION BASED UPON HIS WHIMS AND FANICES. 3. NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF A SSESSEE. ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 7 4. NO LINK OF THESE DOCUMENTS COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. THUS KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THESE TWO ADDITIONS OF ` 12,7 7,000/- AND ` 10,00,000/- ARE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ANY CORROBOR ATIVE MATERIAL AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THESE TWO ADDITIONS AND THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I FIND THAT THESE TWO ADDITION ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THESE ADDITIONS. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. BOTH THE COUNSELS FAIRLY AGREED THAT IDENTICAL ISS UE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4802/DEL/2009 AND ANR. I N THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S DUA AUTO COMPONENTS P LTD. WHERE ALSO THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE SAME SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS ABOUT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S MANAV RACHNA GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 4.8.2005, WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE S EIZED WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED A PLOT. THE PLO T HAD BEEN SAID TO BE REGISTERED FOR RS. 1320521/- AND THE DOCUMENTS SEIZ ED INDICATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 60,36,000/- IN CASH FOR PURCHASE THE SAID LAND. ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 8 6.1 WE FIND THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT EVEN A SINGLE WORD REGARDING THE NATURE OF DOCUMENT AND HO W HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY BELONG TO THE ASSESSEES AND THAT ON MONE Y TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE REASONS RECORDED WITHOUT SHOWING ANY APPLICATION OF MIND ON HIS PART. 6.2 IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SELLER HAS MADE ANY STATEMENT OR HAD ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY I.E. CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT DISCLOSED. IT I S ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE SELLER OR WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SELLER AND PURC HASER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BROUGHT O UT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE AND STRIKING FEATURE OF THESE ANOMALIES IS THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE IMPUGNED PLOT WAS NOT SOLD . THUS, THE WORKING AND THE FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN CAN AT BEST BE SA ID TO BE TENTATIVE OR EXPECTED AMOUNT. THIS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N CAN BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOFS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTIONS. MORE OVER, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEING RELIED UPON SHOWED A CCOUNT AS ON 31.10.2001, WHILE AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED T HE PLOT WAS SOLD ON 23.5.2002. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE ADDITIO NS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT THE PLACE OF A THIRD PARTY WHICH AT BEST ONLY SHOWED THE TENTATIVE /PROJECTED P URCHASE CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OR THE VALU E AS PER STAMP REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS MORE THAN W HAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT UNACCOUN TED CASH HAS BEEN FOUND TO ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 9 BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. THERE IS ALSO NO STATEMENT OF THE SELLER ON RECORD THAT HE HAS OBTA INED ON MONEY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGA RD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6.3 IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNA KULAM AND ANOTHER 131 ITR 597 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE BUR DEN OF PROVING IS THAT OF REVENUE WHEN THERE IS ALLEGATION OF UNDERSTATEMENT ON CONCEALMENT IN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN. 6.4 WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM IN (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) IN WHICH ALLEGATIONS OF ON MONEY TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF NON- CONVINCING LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE SELLER, WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNA L (TO WHICH, ONE OF US THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WAS THE PARTY) AND THE SAME WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX COURT. 6.5 WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TH E REVENUE HAS URGED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,36,000/- PAID IN CASH AS THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT WERE NOT PROVED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE O F SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THIS GRO UND ITSELF IS MISCONCEIVED, IN AS MUCH AS THE QUESTION OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND ABOVE THAT THE CLAIM OF ON MONEY TRANSACTIONS HAS N OT AT ALL PROVED IN THIS CASE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DEC ISIONS ABOVE, THE ONUS ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 10 IS THAT OF REVENUE TO PROVE THE SAME AND AS CLEARLY FOUND BY US ABOVE THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DO SO THE SAME. 6.6 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STA NDS DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CAS E ARE SAME AS REFERRED IN ABOVE TRIBUNAL DECISION, WHICH BOTH THE COUNSELS HAVE FAIRLY AGREED TO, ADHERING TO THE DOCTRINE OF STAIRE DECIS ES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DE CIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NS IN THE PRE 7. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SHALL NOT BE PRESSING THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 3513/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 209/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2002-03 11 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS N OT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09/2010 UP ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 28/09/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES