DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Destination of World (Subcontinent) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1635/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6403 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA NEERAJ JAIN ADVS
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH KUMAR VERMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) APPELLANT BY: SH. AJAY VOHRA, NEERAJ JAIN, ADVS. & SH. PUNEET CHUGH, ABHISHEK AGGARWAL, CAS RESPONDENT BY: SH.YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, CIT DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2013 OF CIT(A)-XX, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSM ENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWINGS GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,53,03,888/- ON ACCOUNT OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO? 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.2,80,58,787/- WHI CH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AFTER ISSUANCE O F NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND QUESTIONNAIRE ETC. U/S 142(1). THE RECORD SHOWS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS M/S DESTINATION OF THE WORLD (SUBCONTINENT) PVT. LTD.,D-8, SHOPPING CENTRE-II, POORVI MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI PAN-AACCD1178P (RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 SUBSIDIARY OF DESTINATION OF THE WORLD HOLDING ESTA BLISHMENT, LIECHTENSTEIN AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING INBOUND, OUTBO UND AND DOMESTIC TRAVEL SERVICES TO INDIA, NEPAL AND BANGLADESH. INBOUND S ERVICES ARE RENDERED TO INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS THROUGH LOCAL OFFICES SITUAT ED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF INDIA. OUT BOUND SERVICES COMPRISED OF MEETINGS, CONVENTIO NS AND EXHIBITIONS AND TRAVEL TO VARIOUS DESTINATIONS OF THE WORLD. THE DOMESTIC TRAVEL SERVICES ARE RENDERED THROUGH ONLINE RESERVATIONS SYSTEM TO INDIVIDUALS A ND GROUPS. 3. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE AS UNDER:- S.NO. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION METHOD VALUE (IN RS.) 1. OUTBOUND TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES RPM 189270828 2. INBOUND TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES CPM 28059984 3. ROYALTY FOR USE OF TRADE MARK - 5004852 4. CHARGE BACK OF EXPENSES BY ASSESSEE -- 5064668 5. CHARGE BANK OF EXPENSES TO ASSESSEE -- 911330 3.1. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED THE RESALE PRICE METHOD ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO RPM) AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD SINCE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY VALUE ADDITION CONCLUDED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE AT ARMS LENGTH. IN ORDER TO COME TO THE SAID CONCLUSION GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ON SALES WAS TAKEN AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO PLI) BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE TPO IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED A GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF 9.58% AND IN TH E UNRELATED SEGMENT IT HAD EARNED A GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF 9.18% IN RESPECT OF THE OUTBOUND TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES. THUS SINCE THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AT 9. 58% WAS HIGHER THAN THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF UNRELATED PARTY AT 9.18%. THE INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE CLAIMED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. 3 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 3.2.1. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRAVEL RELATED S ERVICES IN THE INBOUND SEGMENT, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED COST PLUS METHOD WITH GROSS PROFIT TO COST (CP/TOTAL COST) AND PLI. THE PROFIT MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS COMPARED WITH SIMILAR UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS. S INCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF SIMILAR SERVICES TO UNRELATED PARTIE S IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS MARGIN EARNED IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION IS 4.76% AND THAT IN UNRELATED SEGMENT IS 6.25%. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PROFIT MARGIN WAS WITHIN THE RANGE OF +/- IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECT ION 92C(2) OF THE ACT, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION WAS AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. 3.3. HOWEVER THE TPO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. ANALYZING THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN INBOUND AND OUTBOUND ACTIVITIES OF TH E COMPANY AND THE ASSETS UTILIZED IN BOTH THE SEGMENTS WERE SIMILAR. HE FUR THER HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING REPORT DID NOT FURNISH ANY RISK ANALYSIS IN THE TWO SEGMENTS. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEGMENTS DRAWN WERE ALSO NOT ACCURATE SINCE NO SEPARATE SEGMENTAL DETAILS WERE MENTIONED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS CERT IFIED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALSO DOES NOT MENTION TWO DIFFERENT LINES OF BUSINESS AS CLAIMED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING REPORT. AS A RESULT, THE TPO CONCLUDED THAT THE SEGMENTAL I NFORMATION HAS BEEN CREATED TO ARBITRARILY ALLOCATE THE COST AND THERE BY REDUCE T HE LOSSES. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS WERE DRAWN WITHOUT ANY EXPLAINED OR DISCLOSED ALLOCATION KEY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO DETERMINE THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TPO DISREGARDING THE SE GMENTAL ACCOUNTS AND REJECTING THE TRANSACTION WISE BENCHMARKING DONE BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION APPLIED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METH OD (TNMM) CONSIDERING OP/SALES AS PLI AT ENTITY LEVEL AND COMPARING SUCH MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE 4 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 USING EXTERNAL COMPARABLES NAMELY, SHREE RAJ TRAVEL S, BULLS & BEARS FINANCE LIMITED AND INDO ASIA LEISURE SERVICES LIMITED WHOS E MEAN PLI (OP/OC%) WAS 2.12%. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL B EFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS THREE SEGMENTS NAMELY, (A) INBOUND SERVICES CONSISTING OF CUSTOMERS COMING TO INDIA FROM FOREIGN DESTINATION WHO MAKE BOOKINGS THROUGH A LOCAL TRAVE L AGENT FOR HOTEL RESERVATIONS AND OTHER GROUND SERVICES, WHO PURCHASE THESE BOOKI NG FROM DESTINATION OF THE WORLD (DOTW)S LOCAL OFFICES AT THE RATES REFLECTED IN THE WEBSITE. DOTWS LOCAL OFFICE IN TURN BUYS THE BOOKING FROM THE INDIA OFFI CES OF DOTW AT RATES REFLECTED ON ITS WEBSITE. DOTW INDIA IN TURN PURCHASES HOTE L RESERVATIONS AND GROUND SERVICES, ETC. IN BULK FROM THE HOTELS AND FROM SU PPLIER OF SERVICES; (B) OUTBOUND SERVICES WHICH CONSISTS OF CUSTOMERS TRAVELLING FRO M INDIA TO OVERSEAS DESTINATIONS WHO APPROACH A LOCAL TRAVEL AGENT FOR BOOKING OF TH E HOTELS SIGHTSEEING, TRANSFERS, ETC, WHO BUYS THESE SERVICES FROM DOTW INDIA. DOTW INDIA IN TURN BUYS HOTEL RESERVATIONS AND OTHER GROUND SERVICES FROM THE RES PECTIVE FOREIGN OFFICES OF DOTW AT THE RATES REFLECTED IN THEIR WEBSITE. DOTW S FOREIGN OFFICES IN TURN PURCHASES HOTEL RESERVATIONS, ETC. IN BULK FROM THE HOTELS OR THE SUPPLIERS OF THE SERVICES; AND (C) DOMESTIC TRAVEL SERVICES WHICH ARE RENDERED THROUGH ONLINE RESERVATION SYSTEM TO INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. 5. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ARE FOUND RECO RDED IN PARA 4.6 OF THE CIT(A)S AT PAGES 7 TO 21, CONSIDERING THE SAME THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION RELYING UPON THE VIEW TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR READY-R EFERENCE SPECIFIC PARA 4.7 AND 4.8 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 4.7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE TPO. THE TPO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUN TS CREATED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE TRANSFER PRICING REPORT. FOR THE AY 2006-07 AL SO, THE APPELLANT HAD RELIED ON THE 5 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 INTERNAL TNMM BASED ON THE INBOUND AND OUTBOUND SEG MENTS WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AND NON AES COMPARISON. THE TPO REJECTED THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT AND USED TNMM USING EXTERNAL AS TH E MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. HE USED INDO-ASIA LEISURE SERVICES AND SHRI RAJ TRAVEL S & TOURS AS THE COMPARABLES. EXACTLY ON THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE, THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE AY 2006-07 HAS HELD THAT THE INTERNAL T NMM SHOULD BE USED IN THIS CASE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT DECISION I N ITA NO.-5534/DEL/2010 DATED 08.07.2011 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE US. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, THE FIRST QUES TION WHICH REQUIRES DECISION ACCORDING TO US IS WHETHER, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING RECOURSE TO EXTERNAL COMPARABLES WHEN INTERNAL COMPARABLES WERE AVAILABL E? 6.1.. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT IN THE FIRST INS TANCE, THE ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO DETERMINE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF CONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS BY COMPARING THE SAME WITH INTERNAL UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS UN DERTAKEN IN SAME OR SIMILAR ECONOMIC SCENARIO. NO ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MAD E BY THE LD. DR THAT ECONOMIC SCENARIOS OF CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED T RANSACTIONS WERE DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ANALYSIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY TAKING RECOURSE TO INTERNAL UNCONTROLL ED TRANSACTIONS. 6.2 THE SECOND QUESTION IS-WHETHER, THE METHOD EMPL OYED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO? THE CASE OF TH E LD. DR IS THAT SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AND THE TPO HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO HIDE THE ENTITY LEVEL LOSS. WE FIND THAT NO PARTICULAR F ACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THIS REGARD EXCEPT THAT THERE IS A LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OVERALL TRANSACTIONS. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR IS THAT SEPARATE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, WHICH LEAVES A S COPE FOR JUSTIFYING THE TRANSACTIONS ON COST PLUS AND RE-SALE METHOD. SUCH A SITUATION WILL NOT ARISE IF TNMM IS USED, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PROFITABILITY OF CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IN RE SPECT OF BOTH THE SEGMENTS. THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS CONN ECTION IS THAT EVEN UNDER THIS METHOD, THE VALUE OF CONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS STANDS JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE TABULATED THE RESUL TS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE SEGMENTS IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 (SUPRA) OF THIS ORDER. HAVING CONSIDERED THESE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW, ON THE BASIS OF FAR ANALYSIS, THAT THERE A RE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN IN- BOUND AND OUTBOUND SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE PROFITABI LITY IN THE TWO SEGMENTS MAY BE DIFFERENT DUE TO GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE SE RVICE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WILL BE MORE APPROPRIATE ON THE FA CTS OF THIS CASE TO COMPUTE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF TWO SEGMENTS SEPAR ATELY ON TNMM. THE FIGURES FURNISHED IN THE TABLE IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 H AVE NOT BEEN VETTED BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW THEREOF, THE MA TTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE 6 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE FIGURES SUPPLIED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THEREAFTER ARRIVE AT THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4.8. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE HON BLE ITAT IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006-7 ON THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES THE RATIO OF THE CASE IS APPLICABLE TO THE AY 2007-08 ALSO-WHICH IS IMMEDIAT ELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE ITAT, THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS AS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT IS EXAMINED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- PARTICULARS OUTBOUND INBOUND TOTAL A.E. NON A.E. A.E. NON A.E. SERVICE INCOME 380,984,858 209,333,536 14,742,537 28,059,984 128,848,801 TOTAL INCOME(A) 380,984,858 209,333,536 14,742,537 28,059,984 128,848,801 DIRECT COST 350,178,310 189,270,828 13,389,875 26,723,794 120,793,813 GROSS MARGIN 2,00,62,708 13,52,662 13,36,190 180,54,888 GROSS MARGIN AS % OF SALES 9.58% 9.18% 4.76% 6.25% EMPLOYEES COST 26,875,188 14,766,671 1,039,959 1,979,389 9,089,169 ADMINISTRATION COST 29,806,162 16,377,106 1,153,375 2,195,259 10,080,422 DEPRECIATION 2,408,006 1,323,088 93,180 177,352 814,386 TOTAL OPERATING COST(B) 409,267,666 221,737,693 15,676,389 31,075,795 140,777,790 OPERATION COST(B) (28,282,808) (12,404,157) (933,852) (3,015,811) (11,928,989) OPERATING PROFIT/OPERATING COST -6.91% -5.59% -5.96% -9.70% -8.47% THE OPERATING MARGIN/LOSS EARNED/INCURRED BY THE AP PELLANT FROM TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES IN THE OUTBOUND SEGMENT IS HIGHER (LOSS IS LOWER) THAN THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERT AKEN WITH THE THIRD PARTIES. FURTHER, THE PRICE CHARGED IN INBOUND SEGMENT FALLS WITHIN THE +/-5% RANGE OF THE PRICE CHARGES IN UNCONTROLLED SEGMENT. IN VIEW THE REOF, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDER TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT SATISFIED THE ARMS LENGTH PRINCIPLE, EVEN IF TNMM IS TO BE APPLIED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED HOW THESE SEGMENTS ARE CREATED AND THE COSTS ARE ALLOCATED. THE AUDITED ACCOUNT DOES NOT PROVID E THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS AS IT IS NOT APPLICABLE AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. HO WEVER, THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE TP STUDY. AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS A SCIENTIFIC WAY OF MAINTAINING THE ACCOUNTS WITH THE HELP OF IT TOOLS AND COSTS ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY B OOKED AND THE REVENUE IS BOOKED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS ARE MANIPULATED, THERE IS NO GROUND TO REJECT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. THEREFORE , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER RIGHT AT THE OUTSET IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE POINT AT ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER RELIED UPON BY THE CIT (A) WAS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH. SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE CHART APPEARI NG IN PARA 4.8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SO AS TO CONTEND THAT BOTH IN INBOUND AND OUT BOUND SEGMENTS THE MARGINS EARNED FROM THE AE WERE HIGHER. THE LD. CIT DR CON FRONTED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ON PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD RELY UPON THE ORDER OF THE TPO/ASSESSMENT ORDER. H OWEVER NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR POSITION OF LAW WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM IN ORDER TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2011 IN ITA NO-5534/DEL/2010 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YE AR. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF, WE FIND THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TNMM IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD DES ERVES TO BE UPHELD AS THE SAME IS IN CONSISTENCY OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO VERIFY THE CALCULATION AS THE Y HAD NOT BEEN VETTED EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER IN THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE THE EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE AFORE-MENTIONED GROUND. WE HAVE TAKEN OURSELVES TH ROUGH THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT IN PARA 4.8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN EX TRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ARGUMENT POINTING TO AN INCORRECT FACT, CIRCUMSTANCE OR POSITION OF L AW SO AS TO COME TO A CONTRARY VIEW WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE F INDING ARRIVED AT IN THE 8 I.T.A .NO.-1635/DEL/2013 IMPUGNED ORDER. BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONING AND FINDING ARRIVED AT THEREIN THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OF JULY 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:-31/07/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI