ACIT, Nainital V. M/s. Kuman Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

ITA 1245/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6346 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 14A; 32; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ACIT GOLBHAR, BARA BAZAR NAINITAL VS. KUMAN MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. OAK PARK, MALLITAL NAINITAL PAN : AABCK4290L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3768/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) KUMAN MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. OAK PARK, MALLITAL NAINITAL PAN : AABCK4290L VS. ACIT GOLBHAR, BARA BAZAR NAINITAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE/DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. T HE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AS WE LL AS ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28.12.2012, 17.03.2 010 AND 12.01.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS, 2006-07 AND 2008-0 9 2 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-II, DENRADUN ON T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.1245/DEL/12 (2008-09 FILED BY REVENUE) 1. ' LD, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 'AW AND ON TACTS OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN GP OF FL2 UNIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACTS THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PREPARING BALANCE SHEET AND THE SPECIAL AUDITOR WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINIO N ABOUT THE TRUE AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROFIT ARRIVED B Y THE PROVISIONAL PROFIT & LOSS A/C' 2. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATI ON IN GP OF TOURISM DIVISION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC TS THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND PREPARING BALANCE SHEET AND THE SPECIA L AUDITOR WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE TRUE AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROFIT ARRIVED BY THE PROV ISIONAL PROFIT & LOSS A/C' 3. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN*LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATI ON IN GP OF PARVAT PLASTIC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PREPARING BALANCE SHEET AND THE SPECIA L AUDITOR WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE TRUE AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROFIT ARRIVED BY THE PROV ISIONAL PROFIT& LOSS A/C' 4. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATI ON IN GP OF PARVAT WIRES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS T HAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PREPARING BALANCE SHEET AND THE SPECIA L AUDITOR WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE TRUE AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROFIT ARRIVED BY THE PROV ISIONAL PROFIT & LOSS A/C'. 5. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF STOCK IN RTF CHAMPAWAT UNIT 3 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR VALUATION OF STUCK AND THE SPECIAL AUDITOR WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE TRUE AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROFIT A RRIVED BY THE PROVISIONAL PROFIT & LOSS A/C'. 6. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T EARNED ON EAR MARKED FUNDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BEIN G IN MESS. ABSENCE OF BALANCE SHEET TO PROVE THAT INTERE ST IS LIABILITY AND NOT USED FOR OWN PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATUTORY AUDITOR THAT THE CORPORATION SHOULD STOP USING AND CREDITING THE INT EREST ON EAR MARKED FUND IN ITS INCOME, THE INTEREST IS B EING TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PER DEFINIT ION OF INTEREST GIVEN IN SECTION 28A AND INCLUDES ANY SERVICE FEE OR OTHER CHANGE IN RESPECT OF ANY CREDI T FACILITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED. 7. ' LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSE S DEBITED TO FOR INTEREST RECEIVED ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR THAT WHY THE EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. 8. ' LD. C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN, LAW AND ON FACTS OF T HE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE CALCULATED EXPENSES U/S 14A BY TH E SPECIAL AUDITOR WERE MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE INCOM E WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. ITA NO. 1286/DEL/13 (2003-04, FILED BY THE REVENUE) 1. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF TH E CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DELETION MADE BY THE C1T(A) O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 36 (1) (VA) R.W.S 2 (24) (X) FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBU TION. 2. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 4 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AS WDV ON 01.04.2002 IS NOT VERIFIABLE ALSO CHART OF DEPRECIA TION AS PER I.T. ACT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE. 3. LD. CIT [A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FOILED TO GIVE INFORMATION ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES ALONGWITH SUB CONTRACTORS. ITANO.3768/DEL/10 (2006-07 FILED BY ASSESSEE) 1. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN OVERLOOK ING AND SUMMARILY REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN GP OF FL2 UNIT WERE MADE WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACTS AND OVERLOOKING AND IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH COPIES OF ACCOUNTS AND EVIDENCE PLACED. THE LEARNED AO ALSO IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR DID NOT F IND ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF FL 2 UNIT AND HAS CAREFULLY DERIVED THE PROFIT OF THE UNIT. ADDITION SUSTAINED RS. 14,39,903/- 2. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN OVERLOOK ING AND SUMMARILY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 40A(3) WERE WRONG IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WER E MADE BY THE CORPORATION TO ITS AGENTS WHO IS REQUIR ED TO MAKE PAYMENT IN CASH FOR GOODS OR SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION. 5 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 ADDITION SUSTAINED RS. 5.43,882/- 3. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN REJECTIN G THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF STATUTORY LIABILITY OF GROUP GRATUITY TO L1C WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE CORPORATION HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE GROUP GRATUITY TRUST AND THE CORPORATION HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP GRATUITY TRUS T, SOLELY CREATED FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES. ADDITION SUSTAINED RS. 35,00,000/- 4. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN REJECT ING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO GOVT. ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOANS ARE GIVEN TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES BY THE CORPORATION IS INCORRECT. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CORPORATION IS A GOVT. CORPORATION AND IT ACTS AS P ER GOVT. ADVICE AND ORDERS, THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS UNLAWFUL AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ADDITION MADE RS. 11,21,250/- 5. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN REJECTIN G THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT TREATING THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AS INCOME OF THE CORPORATION IS INCORRECT. THE SECURITY DEPOSIT IS A LIABILITY AND TREATING IT AS INCOME IS UNLAWFUL & LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ADDITION MADE RS. 18,42,813/- 6 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 6. THE CORPORATION CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPEAL WAS 1 ST LISTED FOR HEARING ON 16.12.2013 AND THEREAFTER, NONE HAS APPEARED FOR AS SESSEE TILL DATE. THESE BEING VERY OLD APPEALS, FILED WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 2010, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2006- 07 AND 2008-09. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE WE DO N OT TO KEEP THESE APPEALS PENDING ANY FURTHER AND WE ARE DECIDI NG THEM EX PARTE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: AT THE OUTSET IT IS OBSERVED FROM RECORDS PLACED BE FORE US FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, THAT IT IS SECOND ROU ND OF LITIGATION. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED FROM ASSESSMENT OR DER THAT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 17.02.2006 BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,51,54,552/- A GAINST WHICH, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT( A). LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THESE APPEALS IN FAVOUR OF AS SESSEE HOWEVER, CONFIRMED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMAT ED INCOME IN CASE OF FL-2 AND CL-5 . ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1880/DEL/2007, A COORDINATE BENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE APPEAL TO LD. AO WITH A DIRECTIO N TO PRODUCE AUDITED ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME AND HELD THAT INCOME OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE RECOMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS. ACCORD INGLY, LD. AO ISSUED NOTICES TO ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED RS.3,88, 60,749/- AS TOTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A ) GAVE PART 7 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 RELIEF AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US NOW. ITA NO. 1286/DEL/13 (A.Y. 2003-04) 4. LD. AO IN ORDER HAS RECORDED CERTAIN CATEGORICAL F INDING OF CO-ORDINATE BENCHE OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 2004-05. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY OWNED COMPANY OF THE GOVT. OF UTTRAKHAND. THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED T O BE AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT (CAG) APPOINTED BY COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THEREIN THAT APPOINTMENT OF AUDIT OR IS NORMALLY DELAYED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CAG, HENCE, R ETURNS WERE FILED IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 5. IT IS EMERGING OUT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, ASS ESSES HAD ANNEXED TENTATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALONG WITH ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY ON REMAND B Y THIS TRIBUNAL BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FILED A UDITED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. LD. AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS WHICH WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) PLACING RELIANCE UPON ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DECIDED THE APPEAL PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE ADDITION S THAT HAS BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALL OWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 36 (1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 2(24 )(X) FOR 8 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 DELAY IN PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AS WELL AS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 32. REVENUE HAS ALSO ALLEGED THE ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN DELETED ON ACCOU NT OF EXPENSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION. IT IS OBSERVE D THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IT IS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 11. THE ABOVE HAS BEEN CAREFULLY PERUSED. IN THIS REGARD, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE PAYME NT SHOULD BE MADE TO AN APPROVED GRATITUDE FIND AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2 (5) OF THE ACT. AN APPROVED GRATITUDE FUND IS DEFINED TO MEAN THAT GRATITUDE FU ND WHICH HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE APPROVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES CONTAINED IN PART C OF THE FOURTH- SEEDED. THE FUND IS NOT APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY THI S DEFINITION. LD. ARS VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF WILL OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN THE REDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THA T THE CONDITIONS IN PARA C OF THE 4 TH SCHEDULE WHICH ENSURES AND SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE RENDERED TEETH LESS AND THE GRATUITY FUND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RELATION TO THE ADVANTAGE O F EMPLOYEES. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FUND AND NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER DESPAIR UPHELD. 7. IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A), IT IS OBSERVED THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED HIS OWN DECISION IN FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION FOR AND HAS DECIDED AS UNDER: 8. GROUND NUMBER 7 CHALLENGES THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS ISS UE WAS 9 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE APPEAL NO. 163/NTL/2005-06, ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 (AY 2003- 04) IN THE FIRST ROUND PROCEEDINGS. THE FOLLOWING FINDING WAS GIVEN:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUND ON WHICH THIS ADDITION WAS MADE, APPELLANTS SUBMISSION THEREON AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN FACT, THIS ISSUE STANDS EXAMINED AND RESOLVED MY PREDECESSOR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y 2011- 12. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y 2001-02, THE APPELLANT RECEIVES CENTAGE CHARGE RANGING FROM 10-12% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DONE FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED EVIDENCES WHICH PROVED THAT THE CORPORATION RECEIVED CENTAGE CHARGES @ 12.5%. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD BY MY PREDECESSOR THAT ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION OF MY PREDECESSOR ON THIS ISSUE, I DELETE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,00,000/-. 8. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN DELETED I N RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION WE OBSERVED BY LD. CIT (A) AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 6 CHALLENGES THE FACT THAT DEPRECIATION HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THA T COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS . THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED WORKING OF DEPRECIATION (RS.17,87,601/-) AT THE APPELLATE STAG E. IT IS FELT THAT SINCE DEPRECIATION IS A STATUTORY DEDUCTION THE LD. AO MUST TAKE THIS WORKING INTO CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION AS PER LAW AT THE TIME OF GIVING EFFECT TO THIS APPELLATE ORDER. 10 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 9. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS EXAMINED BY LD. CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACC ORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3768/DEL/2010 (A Y 2006-07 IN ASSESSEES APPE AL) 10. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY WHOLLY OWNED BY THE GOVT. OF UTTRAKHAND. IT S ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE AUDITED BY CA APPOINTED BY CAG O F INDIA ON YEAR TO YEAR. IT APPEARS THAT AUDITOR HAS NOT BE EN APPOINTED FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHO COULD H AVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESS EE FILED ITS INCOME-TAX RETURN ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE H AS LOSS OF RS.15,43,175/-, AS PER TENTATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS AN D ACCOUNT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AUDIT REPORT BEF ORE DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED STATISTICAL PURPOSES 11 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 1286/DEL/2013 ITA NO. 3738/DEL/2010 ITA NO. 1245/DEL/2012 ( REVENUES APPEAL A Y 2008 -09) 12. ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TOTAL PROFIT OF RS.1,14,58,1 75.95 AS PER TENTATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE AB SENCE OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS, IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ASSESSING OF FICER TO DETERMINE TRUE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, HE RESORTED T O ESTIMATION OF INCOME. ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN AN INCOME OF RS.1,10,75,680/- AND HAD PAID A TAX OF RS.39,47, 592/-. ASSESSEE HAS MANY UNITS AS PER TENTATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS AND ACCOUNT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BENEFIT OF AUDIT REPO RT BEFORE DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE STANDS ALLOWE D STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R. K.PANDA) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 22.03.2017 @M!T