Rolls Royce Plc, New Delhi V. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 1118/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3104 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S TOMAR; MUKESH BHUTANI
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment; Question of law; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE MR. N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR S. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 1118 /DEL/201 3 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 1997 - 98 ITA NO. 1119/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998 - 99 ITA NO. 11 20/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 2000 ITA NO. 1121/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 ITA NO. 1122/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 ITA NO. 1123/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 M/S ROLLS ROYCE PLC , C/O - LUTHRA & LUTHRA LAW OFFICES 103 ASHOKA ESTAT E, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS. DDIT CIRCLE - 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI PAN : AACCR6911L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , AM . : THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - XXII, NEW DELHI ALL DATED 30.10.2012 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT ASSESSEE BY SH. MUKESH BHUTANI & SH. S.S. TOMAR, A DV RESPONDENT BY SH. G.K. DHALL, CIT (DR), SH. S .S. SHAH DATE OF HEARING 1 4 .03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .03.2018 2 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 YEARS, 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99, 1999 - 2000, 2000 - 01, 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ORDER OF THE AO LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE AC T RS. 3,65,45,057/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 1997 - 98 , RS. 3,71,56,555/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, RS. 8,34,05,256/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 , RS. 7,97,24,456/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, RS. 3,41,97,448/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 & RS. 2,42,42,280/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN UNITED KINGDOM. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN INDIA IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING OF AERO - ENGINES, SPARE PARTS A ND RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS MAINLY TO M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL LIMITED, INDIA N AIR F ORCE. 4. ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED (RRIL), IS ANOTHER COMPANY OF ROLLS ROYCE GROUP INCORPORATED IN UNITED KINGDOM WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN LIAISON ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF ROLLS ROYCE PLC. RRIL S IMMEDIATE IMMEDIATELY PARENT COMPANY IS ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED WHICH IS SUBSIDIARY OF ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED PLC, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED BECOMES A SUBSIDIARY OF ASSESSEE COMPANY . RRIL HAS ESTABL ISHED HIS OFFICES IN INDIA AT NEW DELHI AND 3 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 ADDITIONAL OFFICES AT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, BANGALORE, KANPUR AND GOA. 5. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 29.3.2004 , IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.5.2004 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A BUSINESS CONNECTION IN I NDIA UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS WELL AS PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM. THE BUSINESS CONNECTION AND PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT WERE FOUND TO BE IN EXISTENCE IN INDIA IN THE FORM OF ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED, WHICH IS A UNITED KINGDOM INCORPORATED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE PE SITUATED IN INDIA INCLUDING MARKETING AND SAL E OF GOODS TO INDIA N CUSTOMERS. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 14.3.2005 UNDER SECTION 148 READ WITH SECT ION 143(3) AND PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED RULE 10 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , 1982 AND AT TRIBUTED 100 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOO DS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN I NDIA TO 4 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 22,11,69,973/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, RS. 49,64,59,850/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 , RS. 47,45,50,337/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, RS. 14,65,60,491/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND RS. 12,36,85,105/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 7. ON APPEAL , THE LEARNED CIT(A) , VIDE ORDER DATED 27.2.2007 CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA THO UGH THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO THE PE WAS RESTRICTED TO 75 PER CENT OF PROFITS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. 8. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE DELHI BENCH C OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.10.2007 IN ITA NO. 1501/DEL / 2007 ALSO UPHELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA BUT RESTRICTED THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO THE PE TO 35 PER CENT OF PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. 9. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.8.2011 ALSO HELD THAT THE OFFICE OF ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED AT NEW DELHI CONSTITUTED A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM . TH E HON BLE HIGH COURT ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFIT TO 35 PER CENT PROFITS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. 5 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 10. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) TO THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 3,71,56,555/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 , RS. 8,34,05,256/ - IN THE 1999 - 2000 , RS. 7,97,24,456/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, RS. 3,41,97,448/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 , RS. 2,42,42 ,280/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 11. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER PASSED HAS ATTRIBUTED 100 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOODS TO CUSTOMER S IN INDIA TO THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMEN T AND DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) REDUCED THE SAME TO 35 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT OFFICE OF ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED AT NEW DELHI CONSTITUTED A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM AND THAT 35 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMER S IN INDIA WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER HAS FILED SLP BEFORE THE HO N BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BEING SLP 1042 - 10 47 OF 2012 WHICH WAS ADMITTED VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2013 . BY MAKING THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE 6 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ISSUE AT HAND WHICH WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A PERM ANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO THE PE WAS 35 PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOODS TO INDIAN CUSTOMER S IN INDIA WAS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE WHICH HAS TRAVELLED UP TO THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, THEREFORE, THE LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 2 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUB MISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE , PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED BY THE AO AT RS. 3,65,45,057/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98, RS. 3,71,56,555/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, RS. 8,34,05,256/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, RS. 7,97,24,456/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, RS. 3,41,97,448/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 & RS. 2,42,42,280/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE RELEVANT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 18,98,44,454/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 , RS. 22,11,69,973/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, RS. 49,64,59,850/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, RS. 47,4 5,50,337/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 , RS. 14,65,60,491/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND RS. 12,36,85,105/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 ON THE GROUND THAT 7 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 RRIL WHICH WAS 100 PER CENT SUBSIDIARY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD GOODS IN IN DIA AND THEREFORE, THE SAID RRIL WAS PE OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY ITS ENTIRE INCOME RELATABLE TO THOSE GOODS SOLD IN INDIA IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. ON FIRST APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CI T(A) REDUCED THE TOTAL INCOME BY HOLDING THAT ONLY 35 PER CENT OF THE RELEVANT INCOME IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . 15. ON SECOND APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREAFTER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE DELHI HIGH COURT ADMITTED THE SAID APPEALS AND FRAMED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL : - 1 . WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL W AS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE VALID? 2 . WHETHER THE OFFICE OF ROLLS ROYCE INDIA LIMITED AT NEW' DELHI CONSTITUTED A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOI DANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM? 3 . IF THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA? 4 . WHETHER THE F INDINGS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA ARE PERVERSE? 8 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 16. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 30.8.2011 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ADMITTED THE SLP OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 2.8.2013 PASSED IN SLP NOS. 1042 - 1047 / 2012. THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS THUS NOW PENDING BEFORE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. 18. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS THE ABOVE FACTS SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) IS EXIGIBLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 19 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 20 . WE FIND THAT IT IS A ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.B. LEASING AND FINANCE C.O. LIMITED (2011) 334 ITR 361 ( DELHI ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ON A DEBATABL E ISSUE, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) WAS LEVIABLE. 2 1 . THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM 251 ITR 84 (SC) HELD AS UNDER: - TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL, THE QUESTION OF LAW MUST BE DEBATABLE, NOT PREVIOUSLY SETTLED BY LAW OF THE LAND OR A BINDING PRECEDENT TH AT IT WAS NOT FREE FROM DIFFICULTY OR THAT IT CALLED FOR A DISCUSSION FOR AN ALTERNATE VIEW. 9 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 2 2 . FURTHER, THE AHMEDABAD THIRD MEMBER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RUPAM MERCANTILES LIMITED VS. DCIT 91 ITD 237 (AHD) (TM) HELD AS UNDER: NO PENAL TY WAS EXIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) ONCE THE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE REPRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. 2 3 . FURTHER THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JIYAJEERAO COTTON MILLS VS. INCOME TA X OFFICER, C WARD COMPANIES DISTT. I, CALCUTTA & OTHERS (1981) 130 ITR 710 (CAL) HAS HELD AS UNDER: - THE LAW IS LAID DOWN OR A PROVISION IN A STATUTE IS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT ONLY WHEN THERE IS A DEBATE OR DOUBT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ANY PROVISION OF A STATUTE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME COURT OR WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT OF JUDICIAL OPINION ON A PROVISION OF A STATUTE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS OF INDIA WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RESOLVED AND SETTLED BY THE SUPREME C OURT, YET STILL THAT DOES NOT OBLITERATE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH DEBATE OR DOUBT OR CONFLICT THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT SETTING AT REST SUCH DEBATE OR DOUBT OR CONFLICT. 2 4 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AS IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS YET TO BE RESOLVED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT AND AS THE ISSUE WAS ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT AS INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH IS BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE ADDITION IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS MA DE IN RESPECT OF AN ISSUE WHICH IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) IS NOT EXIGIBLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,65,45,057/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98, RS. 10 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 3,71,56,555/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, RS. 8,34,05,256/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, RS. 7,97,24,456/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, RS. 3,41,97,448/ - I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND RS. 2,42,42,280/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 2 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY THE 15 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 AT NEW DELHI). SD/ - SD/ - ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( N.S . SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 15 . 0 3 .2018 SH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI 11 ITA NO S . 1118 /DEL/201 3, 1119/DEL/2013, 1120/DEL/2013, 1121/DEL/2013, 1122/DEL/2013 & 1123/DEL/2013 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3. 201 8 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DI SCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 3 . 201 8 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 .201 8 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.