ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Vishesh Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 1227/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2931 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY VERMA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S.1226 & 1227 /DE L/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 10, NEW DELHI VS. SH. VISHESH GUPTA, C - 3/28 - 29, SECTOR - 15, ROHINI, NEW DELHI PAN : AGJPG0058P ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) WITH C.O. NOS.388 & 389/DEL/2014 [ ITA NO S.1226 & 1227 /DEL/ 2014] ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 SH. VISHESH GUPTA, C - 3/28 - 29, SECTOR - 15, ROHINI, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 10, NEW DELHI PAN : AGJPG0058P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SH. VIJAY VERMA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING 13.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.03.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE APPEALS BY THE R EVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST 2 (TWO) SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 12/12/2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 2 (APPEALS) - XXXII, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT - (A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL IN SAME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJE CTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.1 GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN ITA NO. 1226/DEL/2014 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN REDUCING THE COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO 2% FROM 5.6% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER TAKEN BY THE A.O. 2. (A ) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2.2 CROSS OBJECTION RAIS ED IN C.O. NO. 388/DEL/2014 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,66,051/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COMMISSION INCOME @ 2% OF THE AGGREGATE TRANSACTIONS AFTER ALLOWING DE DUCTION @ 0.50% THERE FROM FOR EXPENSES, RESULTANT ADDITION @1.99% IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH HIGHER ESTIMATION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED FO R ARRANGING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY WAY OF CORRESPONDING PURCHASES, 3 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF ARRANGEMENT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT REDUCING THE RETURNED INCOME FROM T HE ESTIMATED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT PERTAINS TO THE COMMISSION INCOME ON THE TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH ESTIMATION HAS BEEN MADE. 2.3 B RIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26/04/2010 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SH. RAKESH GUPTA ( FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE). DURING , THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS , IT WAS OBSERVED THAT BOTH , THE ASSESSEE AND SH. RAKESH GUPTA , WERE JOINTLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF METALS AND OTHER ITEMS, THROUGH THEIR OWN PROPRIETARY CONCERNS AND OTHER CONCERNS FLOAT ED IN THE NAMES OF RELATIVES/EMPLOYEES. BOTH TH E ASSESSEE AND SH. RAKESH GUPTA, ADMITTED THE FACT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES , IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND IN STATEMENTS RECORDED IN POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ALSO. 2.4 CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH PROCEEDING, NO TICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 16/10/20 12 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,30, 450/ - . THE STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED . DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALSO, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE FACT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES. THE ASS ESSING O FFICER HAS REPRODUCED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 4 26/04/2010 AND 0 4/02/2013, ALONG WITH STATEMENTS OF SH. RAKESH GUPTA AND OTHER RELATIVE/EMPLOYEE INCLUDING, SH. ASHISH GARG, MS. KANCHAN GARG, SH. AMIT GUPTA, SH. SHASHANK MITTAL , SH. YUGAL GUPT A AND MS. MANJU GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM TH O SE PERSONS STATING THAT THEIR PROPRIETARY CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. 2.5 DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER GATHERED I NFORMATION FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS CONTROLLED BY OF THE ASSESSEE AND SH. RAKESH GUPTA AND FOUND THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 154.50 CRORES, WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE TURNOVER OF RS. 155.28 CRORES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ( RS. 81.93 CROES ) AND SH. RAKESH GUPTA ( RS. 73.3 5 C RORES ) , ACCORDINGLY, HE ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM OF TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SH. RAKESH GUPTA IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING AMOUNT OF THE COMMISSION EARNED ON PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES . THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CONCERNS OPERATED BY HIM AND ALSO ACCEPTED THE TOTAL TURNOVER INCLUDING VAT OF CONCERNS OPERATED BY HIM FOR FINANCIA L YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 10 AT RS.81,93,43,0 67/ - AS APPEARING IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AC CORDING TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THO SE CONCERN S , THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDED DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 I.E. CORRESPONDING TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.20,43,24,135/ - . THE ASSESSING O FFICER APPLIED THE WEIGHTED AVE RAGE RATE OF COMMISSION OF 5.67 % AS REFLECTED IN DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RATE OF COMMISSION 5 FROM 0 .25% TO 0.50 % AND COMPUTED THE COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,15,85, 178/ - FROM PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIO US BENEFICIARIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALLOWE D ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 10,21,621/ - AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE PROFIT AND COMPUTED THE NET ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF RS. 1, 05,63,557/ - (RS.1,15,85,178 - RS.10,21,621) AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28/03/2013. 2.6 ON FURTHER APPEAL , THE LD. CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF RATE OF COMMISSION OF 0.25% TO 0.50% AND ACCORDING TO HIM RATE OF COMMISSION PREVALENT IN THE MARKET IS AROUND 2% AND THUS, HE RESTRICTED THE RATE OF COMMISSION TO 2% AND DI RECTED THE A SSESSING O FFICER TO COMPUTE THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE L AWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS/ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY WAY OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS TO THE NEEDY PARTIES BY ROUTING THE ENTRIES THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS OF HIS OWN CONCERN AND ALSO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERNS OPERATED IN THE NAMES OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND RELATIVES WHICH WERE OTHERWISE CONTROLLED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT WAS USING ALL THESE FIRMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDIN G SALE BILLS FOR WHICH HE WAS EARNING; COMMISSION. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A ON 04.02.2013, THE APPELLANT THOUGH CONCLUSIVELY RE - ADMITTED HIS STAND THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S/ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, 6 DIFFERED WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF RATE OF PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION. IN THE FORMER STATEMENT IT WAS STATED THAT THE GROSS COMMISSION EARNED WAS 25 PAISE TO 75 PAISE WHEREAS IN THE LATTER STATEMENT, THE SAM E WAS STATED TO BE AT 25 PAISE TO 50 PAISE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 4.03.2013, THE APPELLANT REITERATED HIS STAND THAT THE GROSS MARGIN OF COMMISSION EARNED BY HIM FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES VA RIED FROM 0.25% TO 0.50%. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGING COMMISSION ANYWHERE BETWEEN 2% TO 18%. ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREPARED A TABULAR FORM OF CHART MENT IONING HEREIN THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION CHARGED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND INCORPORATED THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WORKED OUT THE PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMISSION CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT AT 5.67%. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT BEFORE APPLYING THE P ERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 5.67% ON THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.03.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE LETTER DATED 18.03.2013 FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID REPLY DATED 18.03.2013, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED BY HIM AT 0.25% TO 0.50% AND AS CLAI MED BY HIM WAS CORRECT AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES GIVEN IN THE CHART INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER WAS INCORRECT AND EXORBITANT. THERE IS NO SET FORMULA OR FIXED RATE OF COMMISSION WHILE CONDUCTING SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. SUCH BUSINESS/ACTIVITY IS BASED ON THE PRACTICES PREVALENT IN THE MARKET AND ON THE BASIS OF NEEDY. THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVIT Y OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, AND WOULD NORMALLY CHARGE 2% AS COMMISSION ON THE AMOUNT THAT IS TRANSACTED IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE COMMISSION BY APPLYING 5.67% WHICH ACCORDING TO ME 7 IS ON A HIGHER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE INSTANCES OF RATE OF COMMISSION CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CHART \ INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER, IN MY VIEW, A RATE OF 2% COMMISSION IS VERY REASONABLE - ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE PERCENTAGE OF GROSS COMMISSION AT 2% AND ALLOW THE EXPENSES AT 0.5% ON THE SAME TO CALCULATE THE NET COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.7 AGGRIEVED WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT( A) BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE R EVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH REDUCTION OF RATE OF COMMI SSION FROM 5.67 % TO 2% WHEREAS , THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED DUE TO NOT ACCEPTING THE RATE OF COMMISSION BETWEEN 0.25% TO 0.50% AS CLAIMED BY HIM. 4. THE LD. CIT( DR ) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE RATE OF COMMISSION AT 2% WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY OR EVIDENTIAR Y BASIS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS COMPUTED THE RATE OF COMMISSION OF 5.67% ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHEREIN THE COMMISSION INCOME EARNED OR THE AMOUNT OF CASH RETAINED AGAINST THE CHEQUE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 04/04/2006 TO 31/07/2007 IS DULY RECORD ED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 409 AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES: 8 ( I ) THE S TATEMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT NET COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 0.25 PERCENT TO 0.50% WAS ONLY EARNED. ( II ) THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHERE NO COMMISSION WAS CHARGED, HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WHILE COMPUTING THE WEIGHTED AVE RAGE RATE OF COMMISSION OF 5.67% BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER. ( III ) RECEIPT OF COMMISSION ON SALE B ILL S ISSUED HAS ONLY BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COMMISSION PAID ON GETTING PURCHASE BILLS. ( IV ) E FFECT OF VAT/CST ON SUCH SALES B ILL S ISSUED OR PURCHASE BILLS TAKEN HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. ( V ) THE INCOME ALREADY OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED FR OM THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE DISPUTE IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE RATE OF COMMISSION ON ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ISSUING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BILLS THROUGH PROPRIET ARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONCERNS OF RELATIVE AND EMPLOYEES, AS MENTIONED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSES SING O FFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRANSACTION S WHERE NO COMMISSION WAS CHARGED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT COMMISSION PAID 9 CORRESPONDING TO THE PURCHASES HAS ALSO NOT BEEN REDUCED OUT OF THE COMMISSION EARNED CORRESPONDING TO THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF SALE BILLS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO CONTENDED THAT INCOME ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT( DR ) HAS SUBMITTED THAT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRIC TED THE RATE OF COMMISSION AT 2% ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT SUPPORTING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OR RELYING ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM HIS FINDING THAT NO SET FORMULA OR FIXED RATE O F COMMISSION IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WAS PREVALENT AND IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF NEED AND PRACTICE PREVALENT IN THE MARKET . THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE WEIGHT AGE RA TE OF COMMI SSION OF 5.67% COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMMISSION EXPENSES WERE PAID FOR GETTING PURCHASE BILLS ETC. NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM ITS PREMISE S. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BO TH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. ACCORDIN GLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D THE GROUNDS IN APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN IT A NO. 1227/DEL/2014 AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING C . O . NO. 389/DEL/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ARE IDENTICAL TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, ACCORDINGLY TO HAVE CONSISTENT VIEW IN OUR FINDING, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN IT A NO. 1227/DEL/2014 FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES AND DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE R EVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTION S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 1 3 T H MARCH . , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 T H MARCH , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI