DCIT, New Delhi V. Vatika Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1701/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7581 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C S AGARWAL; R P MALL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Rule of consistency; Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. J.S.REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2 007 - 08 ) DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, ROOM NO. - 333, E - 2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI - 110029 (APPELLANT) VS VATIKA LTD., 621A, DEVIKA TOWER, 6, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110029. P AN - AABCV5647G (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. C.S.AGARWAL, SR. ADV. & SH.R . P .MALL, A DV. RESPONDENT BY SH. SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 . 01 .201 2 OF THE CIT(A) - XXXI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 7 - 0 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 2. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,54,38,601/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPE NDITURE AND AS SUCH ALLOWABLE AS AGAINST CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE RELEVANT FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS .110,82,11,014/ - FROM THE HEAD BUSINESS & PROFESSION WHICH WAS VARIED TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1) ETC BY AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,54,38,601/ - FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS . 112,36,50,014/ - . THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE ADDITION R EJECTING THE ASSESSEE S 2 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 CLAIM OF BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE SET OUT IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 4. FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT A PURCHAS E CONSIDERATION TO RE - ACQUIRE THE RIGHTS IN THE PLOTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH IT IS A PART OF PURCHASE WHICH CAN ONLY BE CAPITALIZED AND CAN NEVER BE CLAIMED/ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER SUC H PAYMENTS WHICH ARE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPENSATION ARE NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE TO PAY ANY DAMAGE TO THE CUSTOMERS IS LINKED WITH THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS ALLOTTEES TO EARN MORE PROFIT IN THE FUTURE, WHICH AGA IN CAN NOT BE CHARGED TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, NOT BEING EXPENSES OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT COMPENSATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REPURCHASE OF PLOTS IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REV ENUE EXPENDITURE AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE DEBITED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT RATHER CAN ONLY BE CAPITALIZED. AS SUCH THE COMPENSATION PAID IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE FIGURES TAKEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH ARE NECESSARILY ROUNDED OFF TO THE NEAREST THOUSAND AND INFACT THE CORRECT CLAIM OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND DEBITED IN THE BOOKS IS RS,1,5438,601/ - WHICH CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC AMOUNT: - (I) COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF RIGHTS IN SURRENDER OF PLO T PERTAINING TO VATIKA FARMS/WOODS/GREENS 1,51,38,601/ - (II) COMPENSATION PAID ON ACCOUNT OF AREA BOOKED BY MERGED COMPANY M/S VATIKA GREENFIELD PVT. LTD. 3,00,000/ - 1,54,38,601/ - 3.1. THE BREAKUP OF RS.1,54,38,601/ - IT WAS SUBMITTED CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: - NAME OF THE CUSTOMER DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BETWEEN THE PERIOD DATE OF REVOCATION AGREEMENT AMOUNT REFUNDED AMOUNT RECEIVED COMPENSATION I.E. ADVANCE REFUNDED UMESH MALHOTRA 27.04.1988 1988 - 1989 1989 - 1990 18.07.2006 1,05,000 25,000 4,70,000 VINOD KUMAR 22.02.1990 1989 - 1990 06.10.2006 1,27,980 43,60,490 3 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 RASTOGI VIJAY SACHDEV & PREM SACHDEV & VIKAS VIG 30.11.1994 1994 - 1995 1995 - 1996 1996 - 1997 23.10.2006 1,80,000 1,20,000 40,000 4,32,000 MEERA MOHAN SABNANI & JAYSHREE JAIN 25.03.1990 1989 - 1990 30.06.2006 1,10,000 14,36,104 RAM LAKHMAN & COMPANY JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED 28.06.1989 1989 - 1990 1990 - 1991 30.06.2006 1,10,000 40,000 13,09,803 POOJA SHYAM SABNANI 07.09.1990 1990 - 1991 30.06.2006 1,50,000 13,74,247 KUNJ SHYAM SABNANI & MEERA MOHAN SABNANI, GOBIND KHIANI & KAVITA KHIANI 08.08.1994 1991 - 1992 30.06.2006 2,64,000 13,20,213 RUDHRA MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED & MULAK 28.01.1993 1991 - 1992 1992 - 1993 30.06.2006 50,000 1,00,000 8,49,094 S.N.SODHI (B - 247) 15.12.1989 1989 - 1990 26.05.2006 1,50,000 35,86,650 RAJESH TEWARI & MRS. SHUKLA TEWARI 03.03.1988 2001 - 2002 08.05.2006 16.49,516 3,00,000 TOTAL 1,54,38,601 3.2. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENT AT TIMES AFTER ABOUT 10 YEARS WOULD SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN PAID TO COM PENSATE THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAD BOOKED THE SPACE, AREA, LAND ON PAYING ADVANCES WHICH HAD BEEN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCES . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT AN ISOLATED EVEN T AND COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID YEAR AFTER YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS. ADDRESSING THE PAST HISTORY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE FROM 1995 - 96 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY A LLOWED AND FOR THE FIRST TIME DISPUTED IN 2001 - 02 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) , T HE ISSUE WAS RESTORED BY THE ITAT TO THE AO TO CONSIDER AFRESH. THE ISSUE IT WAS SUBMITTED AG AIN AROSE I N 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS REVERSED BY THE CIT(A) AND AGAINST 4 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 THIS THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE ITAT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ON THE ISSUE DESERVES TO BE FOLLOWED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME METHOD OF THE ACCOUNT ING FOR RECORDING THE TRANSACTIONS AS ADVANCES ON THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FOR BOOKING SPACE OR FLAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND ONLY WHEN IT COULD NOT BE HONOURED DUE TO INABILITY OF THE ASSES SEE THE ASSESSEE NECESSARILY HAD TO COMPENSATE THE CONCERNED PARTIES. 3.3 . EXPLAI NI NG THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LACS IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE VERY SAME AREA INADVERTENTLY WAS BOOKED FOR TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES . E XTRACT OF TH E SE DETAILS FROM PARA 5.9 AR E REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : - 25 TH AUGUST 2001 MR. RAJESH TIWARI S/O - LATE L.N.TIWARI MRS SHUKLA TIWARI W/O RAJESH TIWARI JOINTLY/BOTH 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2001 MRS SHAGUFTA SALIM W/O OF MR. MOHD S ALIM AISHA SALIM D/O OF MOHAMMAD SALIM AND MOHAMMAD ABDULLA S/O MOHAMMAD ATIQUE, JOINTLY R/O 1177 HHH, BALLIMARAN, DELHI - 110006. 3. 4. THE DOUBLE BOOKING IT WAS SUBMITTED IMPACTED THE REPUTATION OF THE BUILDER . I N VIEW THEREOF ONE OF THE PARTIES HAD TO BE PAID . A PART FROM RELYING UPON VARIOUS DECIS IONS AS PER PARA 5.12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , T HE ASSES S EE IS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE FILED DETAIL S OF PAYMENT MADE BY IT AS A COMPENSATION AND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF S O ME OF THE DOCUMENTS EXECUTED FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND CANCELLATION OF BOOKINGS MADE BY IT. 4. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS ON FACTS AND LAW THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION ON FACTS: - 6. DETERMINATION: 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY IT ALONG WITH OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENSES. AFTER EXAMINATION OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE ME, I FIND THAT NO SALE HAD B EEN BOOKED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF BOOKINGS ALREADY MADE HAVING CANCELLED. SUCH ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 1988 - 1989 AND WERE REFLECTED IN ACCOUNTS AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS. THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WAS PAID AS A MEASURE OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE INTENDING PURCHASER TO MAINTAIN REPUTATION OF THE APPELLANT AND WITH MUTUAL CONSENT REPAID THE ADVANCE MADE 5 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 ALONG WITH COMPENSATION FOR THIS PERIOD. THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SASUN J.DAVID & CO. PVT. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED AS 118 ITR 261 SPEAKS OF THE EXPRESSION 'WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY' AND IT IS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY' DOES NOT MEAN 'NECESSARILY'. IT WAS HELD THAT ORDINARILY IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. SUCH EXPENDITURE MAY BE INCURRED VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT ANY NECESSITY AND IF IT IS INCURRED FOR PROMOTING THE BUSINESS AND TO EARN PROFITS, THE APPELLANT CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO COMPELLING NECESSITY TO INCUR SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY, OTHER THAN THE APPELLANT, IS ALSO BENEFITTED BY THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF AN EXPENDITURE BEING ALLOWED BY WAY OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE ACT, IF IT SATISFIES OTHERWISE, THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY LAW. 6.2 I HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 2002 THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 21,02,000/ - IN THE LIKE MANNER. THE S AID CLAIM OF EXPENSES THOUGH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER YET MY PREDECESSOR HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM AFTER HE WAS SATISFIED THAT SAID CLAIM OF EXPENSES INCURRED IS AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENSE VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 06.01.2005 IN APPEAL N UMBER: 31/04 - 05. THE AFORESAID ORDER WAS SET ASIDE IN APPEAL BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.10.2007 IN ITA NUMBER: 1505/ DEL/ 2005 AND RESTORED THE MATTER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL DIRECT ED THE ISSUE BE RE - EXAMINED HAVING REGARD THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING POLICY FOLLOWED BY APPELLANT, METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WHETHER CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY APPELLANT AND AS TO WHETHER SUCH EXPENSE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT IN EARLIER YE ARS. AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IS TO CLAIM THE EXPENSES IN THE YEAR WHEN THE COMPENSATION WAS PAID ON THE REVOCATION OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH THE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 1996 TO 1998 - 1999 WHEN SUCH A CLAIM OF EXPENSE HAS NOT BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE CLAIM STOOD ALLOWED. IN SO FAR ASSESSMENTS YEAR 1999 - 2000 TO 200 0 - 2001 ARE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT WERE NOT TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER THE EXPENSE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THOSE YEARS TOO. FURTHER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 2003 AND 2004 - 2005 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISALLOW THE EXPENSE INCURRED. IT IS ONLY IN THE YEAR 2003 - 2004, NO SUCH EXPENSE HAD BEEN INCURRED. FURTHER THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS THE COST. METHOD WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE AMOUNT PAID AS COMPENSATION WHICH WAS NOT TREATED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS THE CAPITAL COST AS IT R EPRESENTED THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THUS ON FACTS I FIND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY APPELLANT AS RECORDED IN PARA 5.5 & 5.6 CONVINCING. I FURTHER FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE INCOME FROM SALE OF AFORESAID LAND AND H AD SHOWN THE INCOME WITHOUT INCLUDING THE AFORESAID SUM AS COST OF THE L AND SOLD, THUS REVENUE NEUTRAL. 6 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 4. 1 . THEREAFTER HE PROCEEDED TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL PRECEDENT SUPPORTING HIS CONCLUSION. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. AR RELIES UPON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. - 2832/DEL/2012 DATED 21.06.2013 (2001 - 02 ASSESSMENT YEAR) AND ANOTHER ORDER DATED 05.10.2007 FOR THE VERY SAME ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS VATIKA TOWNSHIP P. LTD. IN ITA NO. - 1505/DEL/2005. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 05.10.2007 WHICH HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE TO THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE - EXAMINE THE SAM E WAS AGAIN DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AND THIS ORDER CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 21.06.2013 UPHOLDING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO. ACCORDINGLY ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAME IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR . 6.1 . THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE POSITION OF 2002 - 03 & 2006 - 07 ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ITAT. THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT IN 2002 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ISSUE DID NOT ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE A MOUNT CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED IN BOTH THESE YEARS AND IN 2003 - 04 ASSESSMENT YEAR NO SUCH EXPENSE WAS CLAIMED. I N 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 ASSESSMENT YEARS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS THE ITAT HA S RESTORED THE ISSUE. 7. THE LD. SR. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIES UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAST POSITION ON IDENTICAL CLAIMS CAN BE SAID TO BE COVERED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. SR. ADV. T O THE EXTENT ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT. IT IS SEEN THAT CONSIDERING THIS PAST POSITION T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT A FINDING, HOWEVER I T I S S E E N THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN SWAYED BY THE PAST LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE AND UNFORTUNATELY HAS NOT CARED TO CONSIDER THE 7 I.T.A .NO. - 1701 /DEL/201 2 SAME ON FACTS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PAST PRACTICE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE A SSESSEE IN ITS NATURE OF BUSINESS MAY REQUIRE TO COMPENSATE THE PARTIES TO THE EXTENT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED COULD NOT F U L F I L L T H E C O M M I T M E N T WARRANTING PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL CLAIMS WITHOUT VERIFICATION HAVE TO BE ALLOWE D. A PERUSAL OF PARA 5.12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT AS PER ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS ONLY SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATABLE TO THE ISSUE WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CIT(A) BASED ON WHI CH FINDING HAS BEEN ARRIVED A T. THE SPECIFIC PARA IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER: - 5.12 . THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A DETAIL OF PAYMENT MADE BY IT AS COMPENSATION AND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS EXECUTED FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND CANCELLATION OF BOOKINGS MADE BY IT. 8.1 . THE SAID APPROACH OF THE CIT(A) ON FACTS CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE CIT(A) IS NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION. THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY IS RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE. THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTED LIBERTY TO PLACE ALL NECESSARY EVI DENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AS THE SAME EVIDENTLY HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE CIT(A) SHALL THEREAFTER PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER DULY CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE AO . 9 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H OF DECEM BER 2014. S D / - S D / - ( J.S.REDDY ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 2 / 1 2 /2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI