Kesha Sales (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1773/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 177320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKARDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI D BENC H BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 KESHA SALES (P) LIMITED, 914, MODI TOWER, 98, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI [PAN:AAACK 9437A] [PAN:AAACK 9437A] [PAN:AAACK 9437A] [PAN:AAACK 9437A] V/S V/S V/S V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. KRISHNAN, AR REVENUE BY MS. Y. KAKKAR,DR DATE OF HEARING 19-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-09-2011 O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA:- -- -THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-VIII, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- VIII, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) IS BAD IN LAW AND WRONG ON FACTS AND MUST BE QUASHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY W AS TRANSFERRED FROM CIT MUMBAI TO DELHI VIDE HIS ORDER U /S 127 OF THE ACT DATED 11.12.2009 THOUGH THE SAID ORDE R WAS NEVER COMMUNICATED TO OR INTIMATED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND BEING NON-EST MUST BE ANNULLED. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT TH AT THE ORDER U/S 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH WAS PASSED ON 17.06.2010 WAS ACTUALLY THE ORDER THAT WAS ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 2 COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THEREBY FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM CIT MUMBAI TO NEW DELHI ON 11.12.2009 AND BEING ERRONEOUS AND UNTENABLE MUST BE ANNULLED. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), NEW DELHI ON 24.12.2009 WAS A VALID ORDER WHICH BEING BEREFT OF JURISDICTION AND ERRONEOUS PER SE MUST BE QUASHED. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING GROUNDS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING A DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF `31,20,753/- MADE ON AD HOC BASIS @20% OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- A) TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF `66,76,589/- (CORRECT FIGUR E SHOULD BE `66,73,589/-) INCLUDED IN TRAVELING AND CONVEYANCE OF `75,53,497/- ON WHICH FRINGE BENEFIT TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID AND ALL THE BILLS AND SUPPORTS AR E AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED DISALLOW ED 20% OF `66,76,589/-=`13,35,318/- B) BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF `9,63,107/- ON WHICH FRINGE BENEFIT TAX HAS BEEN PAID AND ALL THE BILLS AN D SUPPORTS ARE AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIR ED -` 1,92,621/- C) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF `11,53,451/- ON WHICH FRINGE BENEFIT TAX HAS BEEN PAID AND ALL THE B ILLS AND SUPPORTS ARE AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED -`2,30,690/- D) INSURANCE EXPENSES OF `2,47,331/-. THE NAMES, ADDRESS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES WITH THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID TO EACH OF THEM WERE FURNISHED. THE INSURANCE POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED -` 49,466/- E) LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES OF `24,18,090/-. THE DETAILS GIVING NAMES AND ADDRESSES WITH THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WERE FURNISHED AND ALL THE BILLS AN D ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 3 SUPPORTS ARE AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRE D - `4,83,618/- F) 20% OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES HAVE ALSO BEEN DISALLOWED FOR WHICH ALL THE BILLS AND SUPPORTS ARE AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED. -GENERAL EXPENSES `15,81,708/- -PRINTING & STATIONARY ` 2,43,911/- -OFFICE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE-`23,19,445/- -SUNDRY ASSETS WRITTEN OFF ` 141/- ------------------ 20% OF 41,45,205 ` 8,29,040/- -------- -------- --------------- TOTAL DISALLOWANCE: `31,20,753/- ---------------------- ALL THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES ARE ERRONEOUS AND UNCALLED FOR AND MUST BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE TO ITSEL F THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY ANY GROUNDS AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT PRESS AFORESAID GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 RELATING TO JURISDICT ION . THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 3. ADVERTING NOW TO GROUND NO.5 IN THE APPEAL, FACT S, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT E-RETURN DECLARING INCOME O F `52,947/-[ACTUALLY STATED TO BE RS.3,85,400/-] FILED ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2007 BY THE ASSESSEE, TRADING IN THREADS, WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ISSUED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT SINCE THEI R PAN HAD ALREADY BEEN MIGRATED TO NEW DELHI AND THE RETURN IN QUESTION HAD ALSO BEEN FILED IN DELHI, THEREFORE, THEIR RETURN MA Y BE TRANSFERRED TO INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), NEW DELHI. AFTER RE CEIPT OF THE SAID RETURN FROM THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER[AO IN ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 4 SHORT] ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. BUT THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAID NOTICE ON THE GROU ND THAT THE TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN CONTINUANCE, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAVING ALR EADY BEEN ISSUED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.1 1.2009 BY THE AO, SEEKING CERTAIN DETAILS INCLUDING CORRESPONDENCE W ITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR MIGRATION OF PAN FROM MUMBAI TO DELH I. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. IN THE ABSENCE OF R ELEVANT DETAILS, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE A CT, DETERMINING INCOME OF `1,26,11,252/- VIDE ORDER DAT ED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2009 WITH THE ADDITION OF 20% OF THE SUNDRY CREDITOR S AMOUNTING TO `3,24,38,776/- AND UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO `51,9 5,485/- BESIDES 20% OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD HOTEL/LODGING/CONVEYANCE, TOUR AND TRAVELS AND OTHER EXPENSES, FOR WANT OF NECESSARY EVIDENCE. AS A RESULT, AN AMOUNT OF `1,25,58,305/- WAS ADDED. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 0 6.07.2010 AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RUL ES, 1962 FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH THE PLEA THA T NECESSARY DETAILS REGARDING SUNDRY CREDITORS, UNSECURED LOANS AND EXPENSES COULD NOT BE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W ERE BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE SA ID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AFTER HAVING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO CONCLUDED AS UNDER: 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE REPORT SUBMI TTED BY THE ID. AO AFTER EXAMINATION OF DETAILED REPLY A ND DOCUMENTS FILED IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 5 ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT AS REGARDS ADD ITION OF RS. 6487755 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADDITION OF RS. 1039097 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED UNSECURED LOANS, THE ID. AO HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS REQUIRED EXCEPT DETAILS OF EXPENSES ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY MAKING FIELD ENQUIRIES THROUGH ITI. THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY SENDING LETTERS TO THEM AS THE CREDITORS WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE DELHI.' IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REPORT OF TH E ID. AO SUBMITTED AFTER NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION FR OM THE CONCERNED SUNDRY CREDITORS AND CASH CREDITORS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 6487755 MADE ON AC COUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADDITION OF RS. 1039097 MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5031453 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS BOARDING AND LODGING, CONVEYANCE, TOUR AND TRAVELS A ND OTHER EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS. 25157269, THE ID. AO HAS REPORTED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF EXPENSES BUT WITHOUT EVIDENCES. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF EXPENSES, IT WAS NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 400000 (20% OF RS. 2000000) HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY ADDED UNDER THE HEAD UNVERIFIED EXPENSES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NEEDED TO BE DELETED. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 150700(20% OF RS. 7553497) WAS ALSO ERRONEOUSLY ADDED UNDER THE HEAD TOUR AND TRAVELS, WHICH IS ALSO NEEDED TO BE DELETED, AS THESE ERRORS ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE AND OTHER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6676589 AND RS. 8927183 RESPECTIVELY. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THESE EXPENSES, THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THA T THIS ASPECT MAY BE LOOKED INTO AT THE TIME OF DECIDIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE.' 7.4 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REPORT OF THE AO, THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS WAS PERUSED TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS 20LACS AND RS 7553497 CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS OF CONVEYANCE AND TOUR AND TRAVEL WAS AT ALL DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. ON PERUSAL, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO THE PROFIT AND ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 6 LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE , THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 400000 OUT OF CONVEYANCE AND RS. 1510700 OUT OF TOUR AND TRAVELS EXPENSES IS BEING DELETED. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS, REMAINING DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 3120753 MADE OUT OF BOARDING AND LODGING EXPENSES OF RS.6676589 AND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.8927183, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEADS HOTEL, BOARDING AND LODGING AND OTHE R EXPENSES, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON IT TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, AS STATED EARLIER, NEITHER THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE WERE FILED I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR THE SAME HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFO RE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE @20% MADE ON ACCOUN T OF UNVERIFIABLE NATURE OF EXPENSES IS REASONABLE AND DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 3120753 IS BEING SUSTAINED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AF ORESAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.31,20,753/- WHILE THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO W HETHER OR NOT THE REVENUE HAVE PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE RE LIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FI LE OF THE AO, SINCE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A ) FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHEREAS ALL THE RELEVANT BILLS A ND SUPPORTS WERE AVAILABLE. SINCE THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE A CO PY OF NOTICE DATED 27.11.2009 ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BY THE AO N OR REPLY FILED THERETO IN THE PAPER BOOK, TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR PLACED THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE US FOR OUR PERUSAL. AFTER DISCUSSIO N, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION, ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 O F THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT A SSESSMENT THERE IS ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 7 ALWAYS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESSWORK. NO DOUBT THE AO/ LD. CIT(A) SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND SHOULD NOT ACT TOTALLY ARBIT RARILY, BUT THERE IS NECESSARILY SOME AMOUNT OF GUESS WORK INVOLVED I N A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND IT IS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHO IS TO B LAME AS HE DID NOT SUBMIT PROPER ACCOUNTS. [KACHWALA GEMS. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,288 ITR 10(SC)]. IN CIT VS. LAXMINARAIN BADRIDAS (1937) 5 ITR 170 (PC) IN A CLASSIC PASSAGE, LOR D RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN OBSERVED IN THE CONTEXT OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSM ENT AS UNDER: 'THE OFFICER IS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AGAINST A PERSON WHO IS IN DEFAULT AS REGARD SUPPLYING I NFORMATION. HE MUST NOT ACT DISHONESTLY OR VINDICTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSL Y, BECAUSE HE MUST EXERCISE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER. HE MUST MAKE WHA T HE HONESTLY BELIEVES TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE O F ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST, THEIR LORDSHIPS THINK, BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND REPUTE IN REGARD T O THE ASSESSEE'S CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS RETURN S BY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS WHICH HE T HINKS WILL ASSIST HIM IN ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND PROPER ESTIMATE; A ND THOUGH THERE MUST NECESSARILY BE GUESS WORK IN THE MATTER, IT MUST BE HONEST GUESS WORK. IN THAT SENSE TOO, THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE TO SOME EXT ENT ARBITRARY.' 6.1 THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.C.N. MENON VS. ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (KER), HELD THAT 'THE DECISION CAN BE ARRIVED AT BEST, OR AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE, EVEN UNDER S. 144 ONLY IF T HE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHY ON THE MATERIALS GATH ERED BY THE ITO, THE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE MANNER PROPOSED TO BE DONE BY THE OFFICER.' THE LEARNED JUDGE OBSERVED THAT 'TH ERE WAS NOTHING IN THE PROVISIONS OF S. 142(3) TO MILITATE AGAINST THE OBSE RVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE EVEN IN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 144 OF THE ACT.' THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHANALAX MI PICTURES VS. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 452 (MAD) HELD THAT EVEN IN ASSESSME NT UNDER S. 144 THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 8 AND A RIGHT TO QUESTION THE CORRECTNESS OF RELEVANCY O F THE MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ITO PROPOSE TO ESTIMATE THE ASSESSME NT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORECITED FACTS, SINCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENSES W ERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE E XAMINED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES VIS-A-VIS EVIDENCE CLAIMED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOR EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE UNDERTA KEN ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES OR CONFRONTED THE RELEVANT MA TERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE UPHOLDING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO VACATE THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM OF AFORESAID EXPENSES AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO A CCOUNT THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AND OF COURSE AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFOR E THE AO AND THE LATTER IS FREE TO UNDERTAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQU IRIES, IF FOUND NECESSARY . WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NO.5 IN THE A PPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF. 7. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.6 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, TH IS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS ITA NO.1773/DEL/2011 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1.M/S KESHA SALES (P) LTD., 914, MODI TOWER, 98, NEHR U PLACE, NEW DELHI-19 2. ITO WARD-5(2) NEW DELHI. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-VIII, NEW DELHI 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,D BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY/ // /ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI