M/s Luminous Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 96/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5942 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.461/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ITO, LUMINOUS HOLDINGS (P) LTD., WARD-4 (4), 115-YASHWANT PALACE, NEW DELHI. V. CHANAKAYAPURI, NEW DELHI. AND C.O. NO.96/DEL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO.461/DEL/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) LUMINOUS HOLDINGS (P) ITO, LTD. 115-YASHWANT PALACE, WARD-4 (4), NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAACL AAACL AAACL AAACL- -- -8754 8754 8754 8754- -- -B BB B APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT( A)VII, NEW DELHI DATED 8.11.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS GENERAL. G ROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE OF `.85,00,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2.1. THE LD CIT(A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN TH E BUSINESS OF RECEIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF UN-SECURED LOANS TAKEN. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED SUCH DETAILS IN A TABULAR FORM AS PER WH ICH THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF `.110.10 LAKHS P AYABLE TO MR. GURINDER SINGH DHILLON, `.2 LAKHS PAYABLE TO MR . GURPREET SINGH DHILLON AND `.182 LAKHS PAYABLE TO MS. SHABNAM DHILLO N TOTAL `.294.10 LAKHS. THERE IS ONE MORE LOAN OUT STANDING TAKEN FROM RANBAXY HOLDINGS CO. ON 186.23 LAKHS BUT THERE IS NO DISPUTE RE GARDING THAT LOAN. WITH REGARD TO THE OUTSTANDING LOAN FROM DHIL LON FAMILY OF `.294.10 LAKHS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, I T IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED CO PIES OF BALANCE SHEET OF UN-SECURED LOAN CREDITORS OF THE DHI LLON FAMILY I.E. SHRI GS DHILLON AND MS. SHABNAM DHILLON. THEREAFTER , IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE OUTSTANDING LOAN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF LOAN CREDITOR AS ON 31.3.2006 IS LESS IN THE CASE OF SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON AND SHABNAM DHILLON. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING OUTSTANDING UNSECURED LOAN OF `.110.10 LAKHS FROM SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON, AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF SHRI GURINDER SI NGH DHILLON, THE PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. LOAN OUTSTANDING IS ONLY `.71.60 LAKHS AND HENCE THE A SSESSEE IS SHOWING MORE OUT STANDING LOAN OF `.38.50 LAKHS. SIMIL ARLY, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING OUTSTANDING LOAN FROM MRS. SHABNAM, DHI LLON OF `.182 LAKHS BUT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THAT LOAN CREDITOR, OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT IS `.185 LAKHS AND HENCE THE A SSESSEE IS SHOWING MORE UNSECURED LOAN BY `.47 LAKHS. IN THIS MAN NER, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING EXCESS UNSECURED LOAN OF `.85.50 LAKHS F ROM DHILLON FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED SOME RECONCIL IATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED A ND HE MADE ADDITION OF THIS EXCESS UNSECURED LOAN SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE OF `.85.50 LAKHS. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A). BEFORE LD CIT(A), RECONCI LIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FU RTHER EXPLAINED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF `.20 L AKHS WAS IN FACT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM SHRI GURINDER SIN GH DHILLON (HUF) BUT BY MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CREDITED THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI GURINDER SINGH (INDIVIDUAL) AND HEN CE TO THE EXTENT OF `.20 LAKHS, THE DIFFERENCE IS FOR THIS REASON. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT SIMILARLY AN AMOUNT OF `. 9 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. SHABNAM DHILLON AND THIS WAS ALSO WRONGLY CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHIL LON, THE HUSBAND OF SMT. SHABNAM DHILLON. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A N AMOUNT OF `.2 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI GURPREET SINGH DHILL ON, S/O SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON AND SMT. SHABNAM, DHILLON B UT THAT AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE ACC OUNT OF SMT. SHABNAM, DHILLON, MOTHER OF SHRI GURPREET SINGH DHI LLON. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AN AMOUNT OF `.27.50 LAKHS W AS PAID BY SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON AND AN AMOUNT OF `.40 L AKHS WAS PAID BY SMT. SHABNAM DHILLON TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS SH OWN BY PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. THEM AS AN ADVANCE FOR FLATS BUT BY MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOWN THESE TWO AMOUNTS ALSO AS UN-SECURED LOANS AND BECAU SE OF THESE REASONS, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. LD CIT(A) OBTAI NED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER DELET ED THIS ADDITION OF `.85.50 LAKHS. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IF THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED THAT SOME MISTAKES HAVE BEEN CREPT IN TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUG HT TO SHOW THAT THESE MISTAKES WERE CORRECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AT LEAST WHEN THESE DIFFERENCES WERE POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS AGAINST THIS, L D COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ADDI TION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS BASIS THAT OUT OF OUTSTANDIN G LOAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MORE AS COMPARED TO THE LOAN SH OWN BY THE LOAN CREDITOR IN ASSETS SIDE OF THEIR BALANCE SHEET. REGARDING THIS ASPECT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO BEFORE LD CIT(A). AS PER THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.4.3 OF H IS ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THERE WE RE SOME MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IF IT IS. SO THEN IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SEE AS TO WHETHER SUCH MISTAKES WERE CORRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR NOT IN THE SUC CEEDING YEAR OR AT LEAST IN THE YEAR WHEN SUCH DIFFERENCES WERE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I.E. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. BEFO RE US ALSO NO SUCH BALANCE SHEET OR COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY WERE PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT SUCH CORRECTIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTE R SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FACTUAL VERIFICATION. HE NCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH EVI DENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING CORRECTION ENTRIES PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE SUCCEEDING ACCOUNTING YEAR OR IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 I.E. THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BRING ON RECORD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS PER WHICH TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.27.50 LAKHS AND RS..40 LAKHS WERE SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE LOAN CREDITOR AS ADVANCE FOR FLAT BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOWN IT AS UNSECURED LOAN. THERE MUST BE AGREEMENTS FOR THESE ADVANCES BY THEM FOR FLAT. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO FURNISH CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI GURPREET SINGH DHILLON OF THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS AND SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON (HUF) FO R THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS..20 LAKHS. IF THE ASSESSEE CAN BRING THESE EVIDENCES O N RECORD AND IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT NECESSARY CORRECTION ENTRIES WERE DULY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EITHER IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR OR IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008- 09 THEN NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON ACCOU NT OF THESE DIFFERENCES IN THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT AS PER THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THESE TWO LOAN CREDITORS I.E. SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON AND SMT. SHABNAM, DHILLON. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH EVIDENCE REGARDING SUCH C ORRECTION ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. REGARDING GROUND NO.2.1. OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND IS MISCONCEIV ED BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF RECEIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HENCE, GROUND NO.2.1. OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE INTER-CONNECTE D WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION O F `.11,49,041/- TO `.7,19,164/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLO WING THE INTEREST. 3.1. THE LD CIT(A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTA NTIATE ITS CLAIM OF INTEREST PAID AND THE INTEREST FREE LOANS ADV ANCED BY IT. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION: THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SUSTAI NING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF `.7,19,164/- 7. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN INCOME OF `.4,29,877/- FROM THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO `.11,4 9,041/- ON UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LSO NOTED THAT FROM THE DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN, IT WAS NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED HUGE SUMS OF MONEY TO VARIOUS ENTIT IES BUT IT HAD NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON MOST OF THEM. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOTED ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AN AMOUNT OF `.2101.50 LAKHS IS RECEIVABLE FROM M/S ARCTIC INVESTMEN T PVT. LTD. AS ON 31.3.2006 AND SIMILARLY AN AMOUNT OF `.86.17 LAKHS IS RECEIVABLE FROM GURINDER SINGH (HUF) ON 31.3.2006 AND NO INTEREST HA S BEEN RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO ENTITIES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED INTEREST OF `.215083/- FROM M/S FORTIS FINVEST LTD. AND OUTSTAN DING LOAN RECEIVABLE FROM THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2006 IS `.15.9 7 LAKHS. THE PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S RECEIVED INTEREST OF `.214295/- FROM M/S FORTIS FINVEST LTD. ON LOANS/ICD AND NO AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING ON THIS ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER LETTER DATED 10.12.2008 OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID INTEREST @ 9% ON VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S USED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ADVANCE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO VARIOU S ENTITIES WITH WHOM THERE WERE NO BUSINESS DEALINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY INTEREST EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALL OWED. SOME EXPLANATIONS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OF `.11,49,041/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A). LD CIT(A) HAS RE STRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTEN T OF `.7,19,164/- AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF `.4,29,877/-. NOW , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A) A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR THE DISALL OWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 8. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD CIT(A) SHOULD HA VE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE B ECAUSE ALL INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT WAS POIN TED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.3.2 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GIVEN FRESH LOANS OF `.300.79 LAKHS TO GURINDER SINGH DHILLON (HUF) IN THIS YEAR AN D A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY HIM THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN O UT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. IN REPLY, LD COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY. PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.3.5. OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WER E GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUT OF ANY COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS EXPEDIE NCY. BEFORE US ALSO, NO SUCH COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REGARDING INTEREST FRE E ADVANCES GIVEN BY IT. A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD CIT(A) I N PARA NO.3.2. OF HIS ORDER THAT A FRESH LOAN OF `.300.79 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT YEAR TO GURINDER SINGH DHILLO N (HUF). IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT SUCH INTEREST FREE ADVANC ES WERE GIVEN OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. THIS ALSO COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AS PER WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF `.719164/-. REGARDING THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY LD CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE SAME I S TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINC E, THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEE N BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON WHICH INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED WAS OUT OF OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST INCOME DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDIN GLY, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS GROUND NO.1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY O F 8 TH APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.K. GAR ODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 08.4.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER. DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO461/DEL/11.