ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Computer Network & Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1144/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 114420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESANG Y SHIRPA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1144/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ITO, WARD 3(4), VS. M/S. COMPUTER NETWORK & NEW DELHI TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD., C/O CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION PART I, NEW DELHI-110 049 GIR / PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. KESANG Y SHIRPA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. SHRI SOMIL AGARWAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2015 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: THE APPELLANT, ITO, WARD 3(4), NEW DELHI BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 16.12.2011 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) -IV, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 ON THE GROUND THAT:- AS AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF ASSES SING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.20 LACS:- (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DEL ETING THE A.O. TO CONSIDER ONLY THE TOTAL CASH AMOUNT OF RS.14,85, 142/- AS SALE OUTSIDE BOOKS AND TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DE CLARED BY THE ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DET ERMINING UNDISCLOSED PROFIT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE SAL ES. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DEL ETING ADDITION OF RS.17,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE F ACTS OF THIS CASE ARE: DURI NG THE PROCESSING OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE CASE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IN R ESPONSE THERETO, SHRI AJAY GUPTA, CA / LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS, FILED NECESSARY DETAILS AND EXPLANATION, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WHICH HAVE BEEN VERIFIED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DEALING IN BUSINESS OF T RADING IN COMPUTER HARDWARE AND ASSEMBLING OF COMPUTERS, DECLARED GROS S PROFIT RATIO FOR THE LAST YEARS AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR TURNOVER (RS.) GROSS PROFIT (RS.) N ET PROFIT (RS.) 2004-05 29143024.26 1244931.24 9614.00 2005-06 111946870.00 1538980.89 13520.00 2006-07 132421930.00 (392552.00) 15320.00 4. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT HAS COME OU T ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REGULARLY MARKING PAYMENT IN C ASH TO THE PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN ADVANCES TO IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF GO ODS AND TOTAL SUCH PAYMENT IN CASH COMES TO RS.14,85,142/-. IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH LEDGER ACCOUNT OF 14 PARTIE S VIDE LETTER DATED 04.11.2008. NOTICE U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO VERIF Y THE CLAIM AND OUTCOME OF SUCH NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 3 E-2. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 04.11.2008. TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE, LETTER U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE OUTCOME OF SUCH EXERCISE IS ANALYZED BELOW:- NAME OF THE PARTY SIGNED BY REMARKS DELTA NETWORK SHARWAN KUMAR THE LEDGER IS UNDATED, NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER, NO DESIGNATION OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE LEDGER SHEET. IN FACT LETTER UNDER SECTION 133(6) ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE R EMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. TEAM COMPUTERS PVT .LTD. NO NAME GIVEN. STAMPED AS AUTH. SIGNATORY THE LEDGER IS UNDATED, NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER, NO DESIGNATION OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE LEDGER SHEET. IN FACT LETTER UNDER SECTION133(6) ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE RE MAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. CYBER MEDIA (INDIA) LTD. NO NAME GIVEN. STAMPED AS AUTH. SIGNATORY THE LEDGER IS UNDATED, NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER. IN FACT LETTER UNDER SECTION133(6) ISSUED BY THIS OFFI CE WAS DULY REPLIED AND THE CO0NTENS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW IN PARA E.7 DUTT MEDI PRODUCTS LIMITED UNSIGNED THE LEDGE IS UNDATED, NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER, UNSIGNED. IN FACT LETTER UNDER SECTION 133(6) ISSU ED BY THIS OFFICE WAS RECEIVED BACK UN-SERVED WITH THE REMARKS FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT NO ONE AVAILABLE EVEN A FTER REPEATED VISITS. ANSAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UNSIGNED THE LEDGER IS UNDATED, NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER, UNSIGNED. IN FACT LETTER UNDER SECTION133(6) ISSUE D BY THIS OFFICE WAS DULY REPLIED AND THE CONTENTS ARE REPROD UCED BELOW IN PARA E.4 5. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF REPLY FILED BY ANSAL INSTIT UTE OF TECHNOLOGY, IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE BEEN PAID BY ANSAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNO LOGY ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS PURCHASED AND NO MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY I T IN CASH WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THAT IT REPAID AN AMOU NT OF RS.84,487/-. THE A.O. HAS ALSO PERUSED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ANSAL I NSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. THE A. O. FOUND THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE INDEFENSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COPY OF ALL THE AVAILABLE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ENCLO SED BY THE ANSAL INSTITUTE ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 4 OF TECHNOLOGY WITH THE LETTER DATED 03.12.2008 WHIC H IS, PART AND PARCEL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. CYBER MEDIA (INDIA) LTD. FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE WITH THE LETTER DATED 04.11.2008, WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF ASSES SMENT ORDER, IT HAS COME OUT ON RECORD THAT NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY I T FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN CASH WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T O HAVE PAID RS.4,07,825/- IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE P ERIOD 04.11.2005 TO 25.02.2006 ON 22 OCCASIONS AT RS.18,000/- EACH AND AT ONE OCCASION AT RS.11,825/-, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS PER LEDGER ACC OUNT FILED BY M/S. CYBER MEDIA (INDIA) LTD. 7. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SPICEJET IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,81,158/- AND BILLED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,43,146/- IN CASH FROM 01.02.2006 TO 28.02.2006. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CALLED UPO N TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE A SSESSEE COMP[ANY HAS ENTERED INTO CASH REFUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W HICH IN FACT PERTAINS TO SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THUS HAS DEBITE D TO SALES BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,85,142/-. SO, THE RETURNED RESULT DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE A.O. BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION145 OF THE ACT, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. AND THE RESULT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE SAME TRADE HAVING SIMILAR TURNOVER, HAS BEEN COMPARED TO DETERMINE THE TRUE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE TURNOVER OF RS.52 CRO RES AND G.P. RATIO OF 03.2% AND ANOTHER COMPANY HAVING SIMILAR TURNOVER I S SHOWING G.P. RATIO OF ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 5 2.86% WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN NEGATI VE G.P. RATIO OF 0.29%. THE A.O. BY APPLYING AVERAGE G.P. RATE OF O THER TWO COMPANIES, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS 3.04% AND AT THIS G.P . RATE, THE G.P. OF ASSESSEE ON A TURNOVER OF RS.13,24,21,930/- COMES TO RS.40,2 5,627/-, SO THE G.P. SHOULD HAVE BEEN THEN 03.04%, THE A.O. COMPREHENSIV ELY TAKEN IT 03.04% CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME IS ALSO FROM THE SALE OF GOODS. SO, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER MEETING ALL THE EXPENSE IS ASSESSED AT RS.20 LACS. BUT NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OUT OF BOOKS SALES OF RS.14,85,142/- HAS BEEN MADE. 8. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF DATA AVAILABLE ON ITS OF IN COME TAX DEPARTMENT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,37,799/- HAS BEEN RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION FROM M/S. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD. FRO M THE PERUSAL OF SCHEDULE 24 OF FORM 1, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS ON RECORD THAT IT HAS CLAIMED TDS OF RS.1,03,099/- ON GROSS CREDIT OF RS. 18,37,79/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCED U/S 194H BY THE PAYER. SO, NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE. BUT IT IS NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,500/- HAS BEEN CREDITED BY ONE OMAX FUSIONS L TD. ON 11.01.2006 ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT BUT NO CREDIT OF TDS ON SUCH TR ANSACTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS SCHEDULE 24. SO, THE SAME IS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. 8.1 ASSESSEE, CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF PRESE NT APPEAL. 9. WE HAVE HEARD LD. A.R.S OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ORDER OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 6 10. LD. D.R. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTEND ED INTER ALIA THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALLY WORKED OUT THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS.20,00,000/-, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE IS TO BE APPLIED ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,85,142/- I.E. CASH AMOUNT OF SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS; THAT THE RA TES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GP RATE, LAST YEAR PROFIT AND PROFIT OF SIMILARLY PLACED COMPANIES. LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REPELLED T HE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY LD. D.R. BY CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARBITRARILY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON ACCOU NT OF MINOR DISCREPANCY AND MADE ADDITION; ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARBITRARIL Y ASSESSED THE PROFIT IN VIEW OF THE GP RATIO BY COMPARING WITH ANOTHER COMP ANY HAVING SIMILAR TURNOVER WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD; THAT ADDITION OF RS.17,500/- HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ARBITRARILY DESPITE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF AMC CHARGES WHICH HAS BEEN DU LY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 12. THE FIRST QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS, AS TO WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20, 00,000/- DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ONLY THE TOTAL CASH A MOUNT OF RS.14,85,142/- AS SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND TO APPLY GP RATE DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED PROFITS BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SCRU TINY NOTED SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.,14,85,142/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VAR IOUS PARTIES OUTSIDE ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 7 ACCOUNT BOOKS OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED L EDGER ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION FORM 14 PARTIES DULY DESCRIBED IN PARA E.1 PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT OUT OF THE SAID 14 PARTIES, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND DISCREPANCY IN TWO PARTIES IN THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS AND THE AMOUNT CONFIRMED BY THESE TWO PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON TWO GROUNDS; ONE: THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNTS RECORDED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT IN THE CONFIRMATIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES ; SECOND: THAT IN CASE OF 5 PARTIES DESCRIBED IN PARA E.2 PAGE 7 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE LEDGER WAS FOUND UNDATED WITH NO PAN, NO COVERING LETTER, NO DESIGNATION OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE LEDGER SHEET ETC. 14. LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNTS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS AND THE AMOUNTS AS PER CONFIRM ATION LETTERS GIVEN BY THESE TWO PARTIES IS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN AC COUNTING METHOD AND IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES . 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT DISPUTING THE VERACITY OF THE SAME AND WITHOUT AFFO RDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTIES FILING CO NFIRMATION LETTERS. EVEN LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PREFERRED TO EXERCISE SUCH OPTIO N BY CALLING REMAND REPROT FORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE TRANSA CTION WITH THE SAID PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIMPLY BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THAT TOO, WITHOUT AFFORDING O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING AVERAGE GP RATIO AS SHOWN BY TWO OTHER COM PANIES AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TURNOVER I S CONCERNED, IT IS TRITE LAW ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 8 THAT IF THE G P RATE DECLARED IN THE CURRENT YEAR I S BETTER THAN PAST YEAR, NO FURTHER ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE DECLARED RESU LTS BECAUSE BETTER GP RATE MAY BE DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS. LD. A.R. HAS CONTEN DED THAT BETTER GP RATE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSE SSEE WAS INTO RETAIL SALE AND IN THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, HE HAS MADE BULK SALE BY BOOKING LESS PROFITS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAV E BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, ADDITION CANNOT BE AUTOMATIC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONFRONT THE PARTIES WITH WHOM AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATIO AND PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN COMPARED. EVEN OTHER WISE, AVERAGE GP RATIO OF ONE COMPANY AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER COMPANY MAY BE DUE TO MANY OTHER REASONS DEPENDING UPON THE QUANTUM OF SALE ET C. 17. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE NE CESSARY DETAILS AND EXPLANATION AS REQUIRED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE OPENING STOCK, CLOSING STOCK, PURCHASE AND EXPENSES RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS B OOKS WHICH GOT CORROBORATED FROM THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO PRO VIDE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REJECTING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND BEFORE ASSESSING THE AVERAGE GP RATE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE M ATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH. 18. SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS .17500/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY M/S OMAX PHARMA LTD. IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDI TION MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,500/- HAS BEEN CREDI TED BY M/S. OMEX ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 9 PHARMA LTD. ON 11.01.2006 ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT BU T NO CREDIT OF TDS ON SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IN SCHEDULE 24. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF AMC, THE AMOUNT OF RS,17,500/- CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO CREDIT HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR TDS BY THE ASSE SSEE. WHEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,500/- HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THERE IS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN DEL ETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,500/-. 19. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HE REBY PARTLY ACCEPT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CASE IS ORDERED TO BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. 20. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH DEC., 2015. SD./- SD./- ( N. K. SAINI) (KULDIP SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 08.12.2015 SP 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). ITA NO.1144/DEL/2012 10 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2,7,8/12 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 8/12/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 8/12 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 8/12 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER