ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Kishan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 2107/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8848 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. P.K.BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2 006 - 07 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 34(1), BLOCK - G, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS SH.KISHAN LAL SHARMA, G - 115, DILSHAD COLONY, DELHI P AN - AA OPS0458A (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING : - 2 6 . 02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : - 27.02.2015 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 2 . 02.201 0 OF CIT(A) - X XV II , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 6 - 0 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,84,04,920/ - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(I) ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION AND FRESH EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AND NOT P ROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. IGNORING THE PROVISION OF RULE 46(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,94,600/ - TO RS.1,82,000/ - (I.E. A RELIEF OF RS.1,12,600/ - ) MADE O N ACCOUNT OF TRUCK INCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. T HE RECORD SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH ON 06.03.2013 THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON ASSESSEE S REQUEST THEREAFTER ON NONE OF THE DATES THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PRESENT. HOWEVER ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATABLE TO THE GROUND NO. - 1 & 2 ARE FOUND DISCUSSED AT PAGES 3 TO 5 VIDE PARAS 5 TO 5.2 OF THE AO WHO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURN ED AN INCOME OF RS.11,60,710/ - ACCOMPANIED BY AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). S UBSEQUENTLY THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AFTER ISSUANCE OF N OTICE U/S 143(2) & 142(1) ETC. ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE. IT IS PERTINENT TO EXTRACT PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO AS TO ADDRESS THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE S BUSINESS AND THE REASONS FOR THE AO MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER QUESTION: - 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOT ICES ISSUED, ASSESSEE S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SH. AMIT JAIN, C.A. ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN M/S NEW EVERGREEN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPO RT BY HEAVY VEHICLES SUCH AS TRUCKS & TRAILORS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS FOR THE PAST MORE THAN 20 YEARS. MOST OF THE TRUCKS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION ARE HIRED FROM OTHERS BESIDES THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OWNING FEW TRUCKS USED IN THE BUSI NESS. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE CASE IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE FILE AND THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME. (EMPHASIS IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS) 3. 1. THE AO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT PAYMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,84,04,920/ - WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TOWARDS FREIGHT PAID REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.07.2007 SPECI FIC QUESTION NO. - 3(A) TO FURNISH DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SAID FREIGHT WAS PAID. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE REPEATEDLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT FURNISHING ITS REPLIES WHEREIN THE REQUEST FOR DETAILS WAS REPEA TED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER SHEETS ENTRIES. THE A O REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT ON 03.12.2008 3 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 AFTER MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUIRE D TO GIVE CLARIFICATION REGARDING PAYMENT MADE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND TDS ON PAYMENT FOR EXPENSE S AS THERE WAS REMARK IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHEREVER APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE WOULD BE DECIDED AS PER SECTION 40(A)(IA). DESPITE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND FAIL ED TO REPLY AND CONSEQUENTLY ON 18.12.2008 THE COUNSEL WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE REMAINING DETAILS POINT - WISE (1 TO 9) AS PER THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.07.2007 AND REFERRING TO THE EARLIER ORDER SHEETS ENTRIES AND ALSO TO OFFER COMMENTS ON SERIAL NO. - 14, 17(H) & 27 OF THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED WITH THE RETURN REGARDING DEPRECIATION, CASH PAYMENT AND TDS ISSUE AND VIDE POINT NO. - 6 TO OFFER DETAIL AS CALLED FOR IN QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.07. 2007 AT POINT 3(A) I.E. PARTIES FROM WHOM PAID FREIGHT AND RECEIVED. CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED TO BE NOT ADEQUATE THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAIL ED TO OFFER RELEVANT INFORMATION ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE. 4 . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT ADVANCE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE VIDE PARAS 5 TO 5.12 SET OUT IN PAGES 9 TO 33 OF HIS ORDER. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . THE LD. SR. DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF RELYING ON THE FACT THAT 15J FORM HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER AND THE REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FROM THE AO ONLY O N THIS ISSUE . EVEN WITH REGARD TO THIS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S STAND ON FACTS WAS NOT A G R E E D TO BY T H E A O AS NO SUCH LETTER WAS FOUND ON RECORD. DESPITE THIS THE CIT(A) WENT AHEAD TO GRANT RELIEF. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR READY - REFERENCE FROM PAGES 13 TO 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY WHET H ER THE FORM 15J WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF CIT, DELHI XVII, NEW DELHI ON 26.6.2006 OR NOT. AS REGARDS, THE SUBMISSION OF COPY OF FORM NO.15J IN TH E OFFICE OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 34, NEW DELHI ON 24.12.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS 4 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LETTER FILE NO. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 34/2009 - 10 DATED 24.08.2009 ADDRESSED TO YOUR GOODSELF, THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 34 AS REPORTED THAT NO LETTER DATED 24.1 2.2008 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE INWARD DAK REGISTER OF THE OFFICE OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 34, NEW DELHI AND FOUND NO ENTRY OF LETTER DATED 24.12.2008 OR THE COPY OF FORM NO.15J THEREIN. THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT REGISTER OF THIS P ERIOD IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPRESSION OF STAMP ON THE FORM SUBMITTED IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2007 SHOWS THAT THE FORM NO.15J WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF CIT - XVII, BUT THE REGISTER IN WHIC H WE MAKE THE ENTRY OF ALL THE FORM OF 15J IS NOT TRACEABLE AT THIS MOMENT. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT WHILE SHIFTING THIS OFFICE FROM MAYUR BHAWAN TO LAXMI NAGAR IN THE YEAR 2007, THE SAID REGISTER WOULD BE MISPLACED. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN FIRE AT MAYUR BHAWAN. HENCE, I AM UNABLE TO VERIFY THE FORM SUBMITTED IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2007 RELATED TO A.Y.2007 - 08 AND PROVIDE COPY OF INWARD DAK REGISTER OF 26.06.2006 ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FORM RELATED TO A.Y.2006 - 07 . 6.1 . INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT PARA 5.2 OF THE SAID ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT APART FROM DETAILS IN FORM OF 15J THE AO HAD ALSO FAULTED ASSESSEE FOR NOT PROVIDING RELEVANT INFORMATION LIKE THE NAMES, ADDRESS AN D PAN ETC OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENT HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO DETAILS DATE - WISE OF FREIGHT PAID TRUCK - WISE WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE DETAILS FOR THE SPECIFIC PERIOD 01.01.2006 TO 04.02.2006 IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE MISSIN G AND FROM THE LIMITED DETAILS FILED IT WAS NOT EVIDENT WHO IS THE OWNER OF TRUCK AND WHETHER THE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE TO ONE PERSON OR MORE THAN ONE PERSON. A CCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT CONSIDERING GROUND NO. - 2 OF THE REVENUE AS FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED CONTRARY TO RECORD TH E ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED . A S FIRSTLY FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND SECONDLY RELEVANT FINDING OF THE AO HAVE BEEN IGNORED. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS BORNE OUT FROM RECORD AS APART FROM OTHER SHORT - COMINGS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN REGARD TO FORM 15J THE AO HAD FURTHER FAULTED THE ASSESSEE ON VA RIOUS GROUNDS. FOR READY0REFERENCE WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT FINDING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: - 5 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 5.2 . AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194C AND RULE 29D THESE FORM AND DETAILS IN FORM NO.151 AND 15J ARE TO BE SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX BY 30 TH JUNE FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. NO DOCUMENT/PROOF REGARDING THE SUBMISSION THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE REPLY. EVEN TH E NAMES, ADDRESS AND PAN ETC. OF PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, TOTAL AMOUNT PAID DURING YEAR ETC. HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. HOWEVER THE DETAILS OF DATE WISE FREIGHT PAID, TRUCK WISE, WAS SUBMITTED AND PLACED ON RECORD. THE DETAILS FOR PART PERIOD OF 01 .01.2006 TO 04.02.2006( I.E. ONE PAGE) WAS MISSING. THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS PER THE DETAILS SUPPLIED COMES TO RS. 6,78,95,920/ - . THE TRUCK WISE SUMMARY OF THE AMOUNTS PAID DURING THE YEAR IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - ' A' TO THIS ORDER (PAGES 1 TO 5). THE DETAILS FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,09,000/ - (6,84,04,920 - 6,78,95,920) ARE MISSING AND PERTAIN TO THE PERIOD 01.01.2006 TO 04.02.2006. FROM THIS DETAIL, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHO IS (ARE) THE OWNER(S) OF THESE TRUCKS, WHETHER THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO ONE PER SON OR TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR, IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS HOW MUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE PER PERSON DURING THE WHOLE YEAR. THEREFORE INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.6,84,04,920/ - , ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WILL NOT BE DEDUCTED/ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. THUS AN ADDITION OF RS.6,84,04,920/ - IS MADE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. NO SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3)[@ 20%] IS MADE SINCE WHOLE OF THE EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ALTHOUGH FROM THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IT CAME OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.3,75,84,110/ - IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND THEREF ORE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED. 7 .1. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN PARA 5.12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE SHORT - COMINGS IN THE REMAND REPORT POINTED OU T BY THE AO AND ALSO WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE OTHER REASONS SET OUT BY THE AO . ACCORDINGLY ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE UPHELD. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THIS EXTENT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 7.2. IN THE RESULT GRO UND NOS. - 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATABLE TO GROUND NO. - 3 ARE FOUND DISCUSSED IN PARA 6 OF THE AO WHO MAKES THE ADDITION OF RS.2,94,600/ - OBSERVING A SUNDER: - 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OWNERSHIP OF SEVEN TRUCKS DURING HE FINANCIAL YEAR. HE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM OWN TRUCKS DURING LAST TWO FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AT RS.1,85,500/ - AND RS.81,740/ - RESPECTIVELY. BUT NO SEPARATE INCOME FROM THESE TRUCKS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. FINANCIAL 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE AT POINT NO.3 (EXPLAINED WHY THE TRUCK INCOME NOT SHOWN) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 18.12.2008. THE REPLY SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2008 IS REPRO DUCED BELOW: - 3) TRUCK INCOME: THE MATTER HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED AS PER OUR REPLY VIDE PARA 1(A) AS ABOVE . 6.1. THE REPLY VIDE PARA 1(1) IS ALREADY REPRODUCED ABOVE. IT IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONVINCING AND IS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE THE TR UCK INCOME IS CALCULATED BY TAKING THE RATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 44AE @ RS.3,500/ - PER MONTH PER TRUCK. THUS TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS HEAD COMES TO RS.2,94,600 (35,000 X 12 X 7). THE DEPRECIATION ON THESE TRUCKS DEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND AN AM OUNT OF RS.2,94,600/ - WILL BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND THEREFORE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED. 8.1. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W H O GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF. AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF T HIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE 7 TRUCKS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 31.03.2005 WERE VERY OLD AND WERE ALMOST OBSOLETE AND OUT OF THESE 7 TRUCKS 3 TRUCKS WERE SOLD. WHEREAS 2 TRUCKS WERE SOLD ON 0 2.04.2005 THE THIRD TRUCK WAS SOLD ON 08.08.2005 AND THE REMAINING 4 TRUCKS WERE ALSO NOT IN A CONDITION THAT THEY COULD BE PLIED FOR ITS BUSINESS AND THEY DID NOT PLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS PLEADED THERE IS NO INCOME. CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 44AE @ 3,500/ - PER MONTH HOWEVER 7 I.T.A .NO. - 2107 /DEL/201 0 KEEPING IN MIND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 3 TRUCKS, HE A LLOWED THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF TRUCK INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,12,000/ - AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,82,000/ - IN TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING FINDING: - (3,500/ - * 4 TRUCKS * 12 MONTHS) + (3,500/ - * 1 TRUCK * 8 MONTHS) AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TRUE SPIRITS OF AGREED SURRENDER. 9 .1. ACCORDINGLY ON A CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE AS NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED B Y THE DEPARTMENT BEFOR E US TO SHOW THAT FACTS WERE INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY BEING SATISFIED BY THE REASONING AND FINDING ON FACTS WHICH REMAIN UNASSAILED GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10 . IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 T H OF FEBRUARY 2015 . S D / - S D / - ( P.K.BANSAL ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 7 / 02 /201 5 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI