DCIT, Ghaziabad V. M/s. Hindon Forge (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 1092/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 109220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: H G MALIK
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 43B; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2005-06 DCIT, CIRCLE-I, GHAZIABAD. VS. HINDON FORGE (P) LTD., C-173, BSR ROAD, INDL. AREA, GHAZIABAD. PAN : AAACH4606E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.G. MALIK, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2005-06 AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT (A), GHAZIABAD. THE FOLLOWING COMM ON EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN TAKEN:- 1. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT ISSUE OF NON CREDITING OF EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE TO THE P& L ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE, WHILE THE FACT REMAINS THAT THIS MISTAKE IS APPA RENT FROM RECORD AND WAS DETECTED BY THE AUDIT FROM THE EXAMI NATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD ITSELF. 2. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOL DING THAT ISSUE OF NON CREDITING OF EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ON THIS ISSUE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE IT ACT, 19 61 COULD BE ATTRACTED. 3. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOL DING THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS AN ILLEGAL O RDER, WHEN IT ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 2 WAS PASSED AFTER PROPER AND LEGAL SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 UPON THE ASSESSEE, DUE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE MISTAKE SOU GHT TO BE RECTIFIED WAS APPARENT FROM RECORD. 2. FOR FACILITY, THE FACTS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM THE REC ORD OF ITA NO.1091/DEL/2012. 3. AS PER ORDER DATED 31.03.2010, PASSED U/S 154 OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF ` 28,19,003/- VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2006, PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE IT ACT, AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF ` 9,45,430/-. VIDE ORDER DATED 06.03.2009, PASSED BY THE ITAT, THE INCOME WAS REVISED TO ` 9,45,430/- I.E., THE RETURNED INCOME. LATER, ON EXAMINATION OF THE CASE FILED, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT O F ` 24,18,061/- AS EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE, WHICH WAS LESS TH AN SIX MONTHS OLD AS ON THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD . THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ON E XPORT SALES. ACCORDINGLY, IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT DO SO. ON THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO NCLUDED THAT THE TAX ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CHARGED. ON NOTICE, VIDE ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS FOLLOW ING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND IT WAS AS PER THE A CCOUNTING NORMS, THAT IT WAS DEBITING THE ACCOUNTS AT THE SAME TI ME WHEN THERE WAS A CREDIT; THAT IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 24,18,061/- HAD NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT; THAT THE EXCISE DUTY WAS RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE G OVERNMENT OF INDIA AGAINST THE EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY AND IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BACK AFTER MAKING CLAIM TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. VIDE ANOTHER REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MADE THE PURCHASE AND PAI D EXCISE DUTY THEREON, THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT DEBIT ED TO THE ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 3 TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT WAS CHARGED FRO M THE MODVAT ACCOUNT; THAT THEREAFTER, AT THE TIME OF MAKING SALE S, THE EXCISE DUTY WAS CHARGED ON THE SALE AND WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTO MERS IN THE CASE OF DOMESTIC SALES AND FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WHERE EXPORT SALES WERE MADE; AND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CHARGI NG THE EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASING FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT, IT WAS ALSO NOT SHOWING THE SAME AS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNME NT AS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED ITS THIS STAND BY ALSO FILIN G ALONG WITH THE REPLY, A BILL RAISED TO BOLTEX MANUFACTURING CO MPANY, USA, LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH THE TITLE BALANCE WITH EXCISE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2004 TO 31.3.2005, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S BOLTEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, USA, FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2004-05 AND OF PURCHASE AG111B FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2004-05. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED THAT IT WAS NEI THER ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXCISE DUTY PAID AT THE TIME OF P URCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL, NOR ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXCISE DUTY RECEIV ED BACK ON SALE, WHICH STAND WAS UNACCEPTABLE; THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS W AS NOT OF PURE AND SIMPLE TRADING AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INTO MA NUFACTURE; THAT ON PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL, THE PURCHASE BILL C ONTAINED THE ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE; T HAT AFTER MANUFACTURING, THE MANUFACTURED ITEMS GAINED VALUE A ND THE RECEIPT OF EXCISE DUTY BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE BILLS WAS OBVIO USLY MORE THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL; AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUST CANCEL O UT THE EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASES AND THAT RECEIVED ON MAKING SAL ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ED SHOWN RECEIVABLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ON THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING P ERIOD WAS A TAXABLE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED FOR TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH WAS BEING RE CTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 4 INCOME AS ASSESSED AFTER APPEAL EFFECT GIVEN RS.9,4 5,430 U/S 254 DATED 29.03.2010 ADD: EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE ON EXPORT SALES RS.24,1 8,061/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME RS.33,63,491/- 4. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, THE LD. CIT (A) CANCELLED BOTH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE ENTITLED TO BE RECTIFIED U /S 154 OF THE ACT. 5. THUS, AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE PRESE NT TWO APPEALS BEFORE US. 6. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, THE LD. DR CONTE NDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELING THE ORDERS CORREC TLY PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT; THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDIN G THAT THE ISSUE OF NON-CREDITING OF EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE TO THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONSTITUTE RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE; TH AT WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT I T WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND WAS DETECTED BY THE AUD IT FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD ITSELF; THAT THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE, PARTICU LARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ON THIS ISSUE, THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT COULD BE ATTRACTED; THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION IN CIT VS. SHRI GOVERDHAN LAL 69 ITR 675 (SC), WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND AS PER WHICH, INCOME ACCRUES WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES A RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT; AND THAT THEREFORE, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. C IT (A) NEED TO BE ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 5 CANCELLED AND THOSE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUI RE TO BE RESTORED/REINSTATED ON ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IT WAS CONTENDED THA T EXCISE DUTY WAS PAID AND THEN REFUND WAS CLAIMED; THAT THE EXCISE DUT Y PAID WAS NOT CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION; THAT LIKEWISE, THE EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE WAS NOT THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENSES AND WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT HAS BE EN SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCISE DUTY WAS CHARGED/COLLECTED FROM THE BUYERS AT THE TIME OF SALE; THAT SUCH EXCISE DUTY DID NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEME NT OF INCOME, AS IT DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT IT WAS COLLECTED IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERN MENT; THAT THE EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE WAS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEM ENTS OF THE DUTY PAID; THAT WHETHER SUCH RECEIVABLE SUM CONSTITUTE S INCOME IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE; THAT THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NEITHER CANCELLED THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN RELIED ON:- I) ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS (1971), 82 ITR 50 (SC) II) CIT VS. LAKSHMI PRASAD LAHKAR, 220 ITR 100 (GUJ) III) CIT VS. HERO CYCLES (P) LTD., 228 ITR 463 (SC) IV) CIT V. KESHRI METAL PVT. LTD., 237 ITR 165 (SC) V) CIT V. Y.K. SHOJI STONE P. LTD. (2008) 304 ITR 39 0 (MAD) VI) MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD., 319 ITR 208 (SC) VII) CIT VS. PALANI ANDAWAR COTTON AND SYNTHETIC SPINNER S LTD. 326 ITR 339 (MAD) VIII) CIT VS. JINDAL STAINLESS LTD., (2011) 337 ITR 495 (D EL) IX) CIT VS. THAMBI MODERN SPINNING MILLS LTD., (2012) 341 ITR 229 (MAD) ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 6 X) DY CIT VS. WAMAN HARI PETHE SONS, (MUM) 129 ITD 469 /9 TAXMAN.COM 9 (MUM) 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WHILE CANCELLING THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE LAWS A LONG WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS CITED BY THE APPELLANT; I HA VE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE ON WHICH IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE, IS NOT AT ALL A CASE OF RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A DEBATABLE P INT AS TO WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ROUTE EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX THROUGH P & L ACCOUNT, FOR DETERMINATION OF CORRECT PROF IT . SECONDLY, EVEN IF ONE CONSIDERS THAT THESE INDIRECT DUTI ES ARE NECESSARY TO BE ROUTED THROUGH P & L ACCOUNT, STILL THE ENTIRE EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHE ET DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY IMPLY THAT THE SAME IS OF TAXABLE NATURE. THE A.O. WILL HAVE TO CALL FOR THE DOCUMENTS AND ACCOUNTS A ND WILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION AS TO HOW AND WHAT POR TION REQUIRES TO BE BROUGHT TO THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE P & L A CCOUNT. THIRDLY, IT WILL HAVE TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS BEING OFFSET BY SOME CORRESPONDING ENTRIES ON THE DEBI T SIDE OF THE P & L ACCOUNT OR SOME ITEM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE B ALANCE SHEET. FOURTHLY, IF AT ALL THERE IS A NET POSITIVE EFF ECT; IT WILL HAVE TO BE ARGUED AS TO HOW AND UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF ACT, AND VIDE RATIOS OF WHICH COURT DECISIONS, IF ANY; THE SAME REQUIRES ADDITION TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSED INCOME. THE MOMENT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THESE STEPS HAVE TO BE COMPLETED I.E. TO SAY; NOT ONLY FACTS AND FIGURES O F ACCOUNTS WOULD HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IN DETAIL BUT ALSO RIVAL AR GUMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED AGAINST EACH O THER; THE MATTER GOES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154. THE A.O . CAN STILL CHOOSE TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION, BUT AT LEAST SECTI ON 154 IS NOT OPEN FOR SUCH EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION, IN SUCH A CASE REMEDIAL MEASURES WILL HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN U/S 263 OR U/S 147; THAT TOO DEPENDING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. I ALSO FIND THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATIO N HAS AN IMPACT ON VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK (BECAUSE IT IS THE STOCK WHICH WILL BE EFFECTED BY BEING VALUED AT HIGHER RATE (IF SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTIES ARE ADDED TO DERIVE THE COST/PRICE ON WHICH STOCK IS BEING VALUED). BUT REGARDING THIS ALSO; THERE ARE TWO DIRECT JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT ISSUE REGARDING VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK CANNOT BE A SUBJE CT MATTER ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 7 OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. I AM PLACING MY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASES O F BISWANATH PD. & SONS 277 ITR 265 AND SHERWANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD. 294 ITR 247. IN VIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HOLDING SUCH A VIEW; EVEN IF THERE IS ANY OTHER VIEW OF ANY OTHER HIGH COUR T; STILL THE A.O. IS BARRED TO RESORT TO RECTIFICATION U/S 154. OF COURSE IN THE PRESENT CASE; THE A.O. HAS NOT EVEN CITED ANY SUCH COUR T DECISIONS WHICH FAVOURS HIS VIEW. SO ALSO, THE VIEW OF THE A.O. MAY NOT BE SUSTAINABLE EVEN ON MERITS; WHAT TO TALK OF THE IR BEING A VIEW SO LEGALLY STRONG ON ITS BINDING ON A.O . AND BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ISSUE BECOMES RECTIFIABLE MISTAK E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THESE GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE ALL OWABLE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 154 IS HELD TO BE AN ILLEGAL ORDER. 9. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO MODVAT CRED IT. IT WAS THIS WHICH WAS BEING ADJUSTED AGAINST THE EXCISE DUTY. AS SUCH, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDERS, MUCH LESS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. BESIDES, U NDOUBTEDLY, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER EXCISE DUTY NEEDS MUST BE RO UTED FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE CO RRECT PROFIT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE, AS CORRECTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT (A) . MOREOVER, IT ALSO CANNOT BE DENIED THAT EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE SO, THE ACCOUNTS AND THE CONCERNED DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE SEEN SO AS TO ARRI VE AT THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXCISE DUTY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT. THEREFORE, A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION BE ING INVOLVED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT GET A TTRACTED. THEN, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE CIT (A)S O BSERVATION THAT THE ISSUE HAS AN IMPACT ON THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE TWO CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD HAVE NOT BEEN COUNTERED. NOW, SO FAR AS IT REGARDS SHRI GOVERDH AN LAL (SUPRA), THERE CANNOT BE ANY TWO OPINIONS ABOUT ITS RATIO THAT INCOME ACCRUES WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT. HOWEVER , IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS OBSERVED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS OR DER, NO INCOME ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 8 ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE EXCISE DUTY DID NOT FO RM PART OF THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ALSO THE RATIO OF TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX VS. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS, 290 ITR 667 (SC). THE EXCISE DUTY RECEIVABLE WAS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DUTY PAID. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION AND IT WAS SO, THAT IT WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. APROPOS THE CASE LAWS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IN VOLKART BROTHERS (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCE IVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS; AND THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE OTHER CASE LAWS RE LIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TO SIMILAR EFFECT. 11. WE, THUS, DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THESE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE WELL REASONED DETAILED ORDERS AND WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IS REJECTED AND BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.09.20 12. SD/- SD/- [S.V. MEHROTRA] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 27.09.2012. DK ITA NOS.1091 & 1092/DEL/2012 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES