ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Zuari Investments Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 239/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52867 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.163/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 I.T.A. NO.164/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 I.T.A. NO. 165/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ZAURI INVESTMENT LTD. ITO, PLOT NO.2, ZAMRUDPUR WARD-18 (4), COMMUNITY CENTRE, NEW DELHI. KAILASH COLONYT EXTN., NEW DELHI. V. AND I.T.A. NO.237/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 I.T.A. NO.238/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 I.T.A. NBO.239/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO, ZAURI INVESTMENT LTD., WARD-18 (4), PLOT NO.2, ZAMRUDPUR NEW DELHI. V. COMMUNITY CENTRE, KAILASH COLONU EXTN., NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 2 PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAACZ AAACZ AAACZ AAACZ- -- -0196 0196 0196 0196- -- -R RR R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.V.S.R. KRISHNA, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AK. MONGA, SR. DR. ORDER PER PER PER PER BENCH: BENCH: BENCH: BENCH: THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CORRESPONDIN G CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE COMBIN ED ORDER OF LD CIT(A)- XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 12.11.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 -02, 2006-07 & 2007-08. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS A RE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE F OR THE RELEVANT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- -- -02: 02: 02: 02: 3. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AND CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE I S NO NEXUS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) FOR MA KING ANY DISALL0OWANCE U/S 14A TOWARDS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING T AX FREE INCOME. HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND IF SATISFIED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.26,987.41. SUCH SETTING ASIDE POWERS ARE NOT AVAILA BLE TO THE CIT(A). ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 3 CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HIMSELF ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED THE AP PEAL RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.26,987.41 AS COMPLETE DETA ILS AND WORKING WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE CIT(A). 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE AND ANOTHER. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, ALTER , AMEND AND FORGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE POWERS OF THE LD CIT(A) TO SET ASIDE ISSUES DECIDED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN CURTAILED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2001. 2. BY NOT CALLING GOT REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE ISSUE SET ASIDE FOR VERIFICATION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED TH E APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.14 DATED 12.12 .2001 ON THE ISSUE. 3. THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE UNDER RULE 46A ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006- -- -07 0707 07 5. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AND CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE I S NO NEXUS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) FOR MAKING ANY D ISALL0OWANCE U/S 14A TOWARDS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. HENCE NO DI SALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 4 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND IF SATISFIED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.50,729.37 SUCH SETTING ASIDE POWERS ARE NOT AVAILAB LE TO THE CIT(A). CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HIMSELF ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED THE AP PEAL RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.50,729.37 AS COMPLETE DETA ILS AND WORKING WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE CIT(A). 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE AND ANOTHER. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, ALTER , AMEND AND FORGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE POWERS OF THE LD CIT(A) TO SET ASIDE ISSUES DECIDED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN CURTAILED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2001. 2. BY NOT CALLING GOT REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE ISSUE SET ASIDE FOR VERIFICATION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED TH E APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.14 DATED 12.12 .2001 ON THE ISSUE. 3. THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE UNDER RULE 46A ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007- -- -08: 08: 08: 08: 7. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 5 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AND CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE I S NO NEXUS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) FOR MAKING ANY D ISALL0OWANCE U/S 14A TOWARDS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. HENCE NO DI SALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND IF SATISFIED TO RESTRIC T THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.56,525.24 SUCH SETTING ASIDE POWERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE T O THE CIT(A). CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HIMSELF ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED THE APPEAL REST RICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO `.56,525.247 AS COMPLETE DETAIL S AND WORKING WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE CIT(A). 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO ONE AND ANOTHER. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, ALTER , AMEND AND FORGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 8. GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1 THE POWERS OF THE LD CIT(A) TO SET ASIDE ISSUES DECIDED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN CURTAILED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2001. 2. BY NOT CALLING GOT REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE ISSUE SET ASIDE FOR VERIFICATION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED TH E APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.14 DATED 12.12 .2001 ON THE ISSUE. ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 6 3. THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE UNDER RULE 46A ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. APPEAL NO APPEAL NO APPEAL NO APPEAL NO. .. .163/DEL/2011 & I.T.A. NO.237/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2001 163/DEL/2011 & I.T.A. NO.237/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2001 163/DEL/2011 & I.T.A. NO.237/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2001 163/DEL/2011 & I.T.A. NO.237/DEL/2011 (A.Y. 2001- -- -02): 02): 02): 02): 9. IN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET AS IDE BY THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI VIDE THEIR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 3 006/DEL/2004. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- 1. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A INSERTED BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 1.4.1962 HAVE TO BE APPLIED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHO USING CORPORATION. 2. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STERLI NG FOOD LTD, DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE MATERIAL EXPRESSI ON IN THE CASE OF STERLING FOOD LTD. IS DERIVED FROM WHEREAS THE MATERIA L EXPRESSION IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A IS IN RELATION TO WHICH I S A VERY WIDE EXPRESSION. THUS PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) & (3) OF SECTION 1 4A WILL APPLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE OF `.57,35,803/- AND EXPEND ITURE ON PERSONAL AT `.32,72,353/- ARE COMMON EXPENSES PERTAINING TO EACH A ND EVERY ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO PART OF IT WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 7 10. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. 11. IN PURSUANCE OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL , THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MAIN S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PAGES 2-3 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ISSUES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS STATED H EREIN ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. DCIT V. SJ INVESTMENT & INDS. LTD. 89 ITD 44. (KOL. ). 2. KB TRADING CO. LTD. V. DCIT IN I.,T.A. NO.924/CA L/2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ITAT, CALCUTTA A BENCH. 12. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT `.5,25,57,639/- AND DIVIDEND INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS `.25,27,629/-. THE SUM TOTAL OF OPERATING ADMINISTRAT IVE AND OTHER EXPENSES AND EXPENSES ON PERSONNEL WAS `.90,08,158/-. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THEREFORE, WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS UNDER: - 2527629 X 9008158 ---------------------------- = 433292 52557639 13. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL DIVIDEND FROM ONLY ONE COMPANY NAMELY M/S TEXMACO LTD.. THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID COMPANY WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97. THE SAME INVESTMENT WAS MADE O UT OF COMPANYS OWN FUNDS. THE BALANCE DIVIDEND INCOME IF COMPARED TO THE OT HER INCOME OF THE ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 8 ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TAXABLE WAS ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE. IT WAS , THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT NONE OF THE EXPENSES WERE RELALTABLE TO EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DCIT 234 CTR 1. 14. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT WAS CONTENDED THA T ONLY 25% OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON PERSONNEL CAN BE SAID TO BE RELATABLE TO EARNIN G THE EXEMPT INCOME. ON THAT BASIS, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WA S WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT `..26,987.41. 15. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) OPINED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE DISPUTE, THEREFO RE, WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE OUT OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L A/C WHICH WAS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY RELATABLE TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND WHEREAS T HE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PROPORTIONATE RELATABLE EXPENSES ONLY ON 25% OF PERSONNEL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OPINED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN JUSTIFICATION FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE. THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS FURTHER DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE SAID AMOUNT IF HE WAS SATISFIED. AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 9 16. BEFORE US THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHEREAS THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, IT WAS CONTEN DED BY THE LD DR THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ONLY BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THUS THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE. HE ALSO REITERATED THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THAT THE LD CIT(A) COULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THE IS SUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD CIT( A) HAS NOT CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IS A GGRIEVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE MATTER BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. IT IS TRUE THAT THE POWER OF THE LD CIT(A) TO SET ASIDE ANY MATTER W AS CURTAILED BY MAKING AMENDMENT TO SECTION 251(1)(A) W..E.F. 1.6.2001. IN TH E ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR PASSING A FRESH SPEAKING OR DER AS PER LAW. THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EARLIER DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE., IF SO REQUIRED HE SHOUL D ALSO OBTAIN THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006- -- -07: 07: 07: 07: ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 10 19. THE FIRST ISSUE DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FI LE FOR PASSING FRESH SPEAKING ORDER KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY US FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A FURTHER GROUND WITH REFERENCE T O DISALLOWANCE OF `.98,950/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY IT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AS SUCH THIS AMOUNT WAS INCURRED TOWARDS ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND NOT TOWARDS OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE. IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT SUCH SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER ON THIS ISS UE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED AND IF SO REQUIRED REMAND REPORT MA Y BE OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE PASSING A FRESH ORDER. THUS, BOT H THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007- -- -08: 08: 08: 08: 21. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS YEAR IS WITH REFERENCE TO DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED BY US IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR PASSING A FRESH SPEAKING ORDER KEEPING IN VIEW OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02. THUS, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 11 22. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE R EVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING I.E. 11 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (U.S. BEDI) (B.K. HALDA R) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 11.10.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 11.10.2011 DATE OF DICTATION 11.10.2011 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE 13.1 0.2011 ITA NO163 TO 165 & 237 TO 239/DEL/11 12 MEMBER. DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH 13 .10.2011