Smt. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2409/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7910 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEV JYOTI DAS
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH:E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NOS. 2409 TO 2413/ DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2000-01 TO 2004 -05) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S FERNS N PETALS ME-1, M-BLOCK MARKET, GREATER KAILASH, PART-1, NEW DELHI. AFDPG2774B VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI. & I.T.A.NOS. 2433 TO 2437/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2000-01 TO 2004-05) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 10 NEW DELHI. VS MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S FERNS N PETALS ME-1, M-BLOCK MARKET, GREATER KAILASH, PART-1, NEW DELHI. AFDPG2774B ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SH. DEV JYOTI DAS, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 17/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/05/2016 2 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR APPEAL BY ASSESSEE APPEAL BY DEPT. DATE OF ORDER OF CIT(A) 2000-01 ITA NO. 2409 ITA NO. 2433 12/03/2012 2001-02 ITA NO. 2410 ITA NO. 2434 12/03/2012 2002-03 ITA NO. 2411 ITA NO. 2435 13/03/2012 2003-04 ITA NO. 2412 ITA NO. 2436 14/03/2012 2004-05 ITA NO. 2413 ITA NO. 2437 14/03/2012 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD ORIGINALLY FI LED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION AS BELOW; ASSESSMENT YEAR ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON DECLARED TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT 2000 - 01 30.10.2000 1,70,016/ - 2001 - 02 31.10.2001 5,42,737/ - 2002 - 03 31.10.2002 5,70,393/ - 2003 - 04 11.11.2003 8,48,960/ - 2004 - 05 09.10.200 4 9,45,249/ - 2.1. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 23.12.2005, ON THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES PREMISES AT VASANT VIHAR, ANNEXURE A 5(BUNCH OF LOOSE PAPERS) WERE SEIZED PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. AS PER PAGES 14 TO 39 OF THIS ANNEXURE A-5, CLO SING/OPENING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2004 AND 01.04.20 04 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.3,41,491/- AS AGAINST RS.99,9 50/-, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT DATED 12.12.2006, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 3 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 09.01.2007 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) AL ONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 03.10.2000 THE ASSESSEE FILED V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATION AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ON 28.12.2 007 AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN THE RETURNED INCOME. 2.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF CE RTAIN ADDITIONS, IN PART AND CERTAIN IN TOTO. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE LD.AO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ON ACCOUNT O F SUPPRESSION OF CLOSING STOCK, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED B Y THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED, THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION TO AN EXTENT OF 12,07,705/-, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EX PLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF STOCK TO HIS SATISFACTION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE US. 3.1 AT THE OUTSET WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS APPEAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAS R AISED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, IN RESPECT OF VALIDITY OF ASS ESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT, AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTA INING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WERE FOUND SEIZ ED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. IT IS THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEA RS LISTED 4 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 ABOVE ARE ILLEGAL AND THESE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SHOUL D BE QUASHED. 3.2. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE UP GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AS IT RAISES THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF ORDER PASSED U/S 153A OF T HE ACT. 3.3. THE LEGAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEALS, IS THAT THE ADDITION ON THESE YEARS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE, BECAUSE NO INCR IMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO SUCH ADDITIONS WERE FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND FURTHER THE ASSESSMENT FOR THESE YEAR S, WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND HENCE THEY HAV E NOT ABATED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A IN R ESPECT OF THE FACT WHETHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND S EIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RELEV ANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON. 4.1 IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THIS ISSUE IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO CONSIDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: 153A.(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY 5 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL-- (A) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139; (B) ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE: PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB- SECTION PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE: ........... 6 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 4.2. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION BRING S TO LIGHT THAT WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ETC. , THE A.O SHALL ISSUE A NOTICE REQUIRING THE PERSON SEARCHED TO FUR NISH HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR SIX YEARS PENDING, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION WA S MADE. THIS PROPOSITION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2 012) 137 ITD 287 (SB) (MUM.). 4.3 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. KABUL CHAWLA VS ACIT REPORTED IN 380 ITR 575 HAS AN ALYZED THE SECTION AND LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS OF LAW: SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL POSITION 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(L) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW E XPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION TH AT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF T HE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MAND ATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX A Y S IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH A Y S WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A Y IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASS ESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED S IX YEARS IN 7 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEAR S. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN. WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX' . IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITI ONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FO UND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELA TED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSES SMENT 'CAN. BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT H AS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSM ENT OR- REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS {I.E. THOS E PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO C OMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, T HE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER M ATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. UII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH B Y THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTH ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUM ENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCL OSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. ' 8 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 4.4 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS LATA JAIN VIDE O RDER DATED 29.04.2016, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT H ELD THAT SECTION 153A ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE FOR THOSE AS SESSMENT YEAS IN WHICH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS RECOVERE D, EVEN THOUGH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL MAY HAVE BEEN RECOVER ED FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) IN THE BLOCK OF 6 YEARS. 4.5 APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THESE CA SE LAWS TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 153A FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 -01 TO 2003-04 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS TH AT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND OR SEIZED, WH ICH ARE RELATABLE TO THESE YEARS, DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. 4.6 IN THE RESULT, WE QUASH ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDE RS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 A S BAD IN LAW. 5. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IT IS OB SERVED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. A COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. 5.1 IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ACCORDING LY WE HOLD THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A TO BE VALID FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. WE NOW DEAL WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON MERITS. 9 I.T.A.NO. 2409-24 13/DEL/2012 6. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ARE AS UNDER: 6.1 GROUND NO.1: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.13,79,801/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF EXPENDITURE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 6.2 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.60,06 6/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF FRANCHISEE COMMISSION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A USUAL PRACTICE THAT THE LANDLORDS MAKE S FRANCHISEE AGREEMENTS INSTEAD OF RENT AGREEMENT, FOR GIVING SP ACE ON RENT, IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF LAND LORD IN THE PROPERTY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA D PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 60,066. THE LD.AO TREATED THIS EX PENDITURE AS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME. 6.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A), D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THA T THE AO HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE AND HAS BASED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE FIGU RES SHOWN IN THE BOOKS ONLY. HE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOUND THAT THE CLAIM IS GENUINE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. AGGRIE VED BY THE 10 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 6.4 FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A), I T IS FOUND THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FRANCHI SEE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN HER AND VARIOUS PARTIES. THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SENT TO THE LD. AO FOR VERIFICATION, AND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. THE LD.AO IN THE REPORT OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITION MENTION ED IN THE AGREEMENT. HE THEREFORE JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MAD E BY HER AS CORRECT. 6.5 THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE IN THE FORM OF, COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF FRANCHISEE COMMISSION, RENT RECEIVE D FROM VARIOUS PARTIES ETC. THE GENUINENESS OF THESE AGRE EMENTS ARE NOT DOUBTED BY THE LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PA YMENT OF COMMISSION BY WAY OF CHECK ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TD S HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. 6.6 THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT TH E AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT DISALLOWANCE IS BASED ON THE FIGURES AS SHOWN IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ADVERSE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD.AO ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY LD. A.O. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE COMMISSION TO THE PAYEE AFTER DEDUCTING 11 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 THE TDS. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE ARE THEREFORE INC LINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY GROUND N O. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 : 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.88,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED FRANCHISEE COMMISSION. 7.1 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A ) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE F ORM OF AGREEMENTS WHICH WERE SENT TO THE LD. AO FOR HIS RE PORT. 7.2 THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT LD. AO HAS RAISE D GENERAL OBJECTION AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCES AND HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THESE DOCUMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT (A) ADMITTED THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE AND FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN PROPER PROSPE CTIVE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS . 88 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED FRANCHISEE COMMISSION. 6.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) THE RE VENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ACT OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE. 12 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 6.4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED INCOME ON ACCOUN T OF COMMISSION FROM 52 FRANCHISES OPERATED AND CONTROLL ED BY HER AND 4 WEDDING FRANCHISES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT SHE NEVER ADMITTE D THAT SHE IS HAVING 52 CONTROLLED AND OPERATED FRANCHISES OUTLET S DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 6.5 IT IS A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO MATERIAL W AS FOND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SUBM ISSIONS ON AFFIDAVIT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF ALL THE PARTIES THAT ARE FRANCHIS E OUTLETS, WEDDING FRANCHISES AND RETAIL OUTLETS OF HERS, YEAR -WISE AND ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE SAME AND HAS NOT MAD E ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS. 6.6 LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE O N RECORD, HELD AS UNDER: 6.3 ON THE BASIS OF APPRECIATION OF THE VIEWS OF T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT, THE CONTENT ION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE VERIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL FRAN CHISEE AGREEMENTS BY THE AO AND THE UNDERSIGNED, THE FOLLO WING FACTS EMERGE: (A) THAT DURING OCTOBER -DECEMBER 2007, THE AO ASKE D THE APPELLANT TO GIVE DETAILS OF VARIOUS CONTROLLED OUT LETS/FRANCHISEES OUTLETS OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY YEAR- WISE BIFURCATION OF THE SAME. THE SAME QUESTION. 13 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 'PLEASE GIVE THE DETAILS WHICH COMPLETE NAMES AND A DDRESS OF 46 OUTLETS, 65 STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AND 156 VENDOR PARTN ERS OUTSIDE INDIA AS MENTIONED IN YOUR GROUP PROFILE' WAS INCLU DED BY THE AO IN ALL QUESTIONNAIRES ISSUED FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 7.001-02 TO 2006-2007 ON BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLE CTED FROM THE APPELLANT'S WEBSITE. (B) THAT THE APPELLANT GAVE A GENERAL REPLY BASED O N THE FACTUAL POSITION AS ON THE DATE OF SUBMISSION OF DETAILS WI THOUT GIVING ANY BIFURCATION YEAR-WISE IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUES TION IN REPLIES SUBMITTED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS STARTING FRO M 2001-02 TO 2006-2007. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD DURING THE PERIO D OCTOBER- DECEMBER 2007, 52 OWNED CONTROLLED/FRANCHISEE OUTLE TS AND 4 WEDDINGS FRANCHISEES, THE INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED BY HER IN RESPECTIVE REPLIES SUPPLIED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED. (C) THE AO HAS TREATED THIS INFORMATION AS APPLICAB LE TO ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 2001-02 TO 2006-07 ON THE BAS IS OF THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ON T HE OTHER HAND HAS DISPUTED THIS FINDING THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT DATE D 18/03/2010 WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION IN HI S REMAND REPORT DATED 03103/2011, THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDA VIT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ANY EVIDENC E TO THE CONTRARY. (D) SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS .110 LAKH DURING THE SEAR PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF FRANCHISE FEES AND UNDISCLOSED FRANCH ISE FEE FOR THE F.Y. DURING WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED, THE AO PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOM E IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO. SINCE HE PRESUMED THAT THE NUMB ER OF OUTLETS REMAINED CONSTANT IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 2001-02 TO 2006-07, HE ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT A C ERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING HER STATEMENT U/S 132(4). HE ESTIMATED SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER: A. A.Y.2001-02 @50% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.55,00 ,000/- 14 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 B. A.Y.2002-03 @60% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.66,00 ,000/- C. A.Y.2003-04 @70% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.77,00 ,000/- D. A.Y.2004-05 @80% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.88,00 ,000/- E. A.Y.2005-06 @90% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.99,00 ,000/- F. A.Y.2006-07 @100% OF DISCLOSED AMOUNT RS.1,10 ,00,000/- (E) ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A DISCLOSURE DU RING THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07, NO SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS MA DE FOR EARLIER YEARS, NOR WAS THERE, ANY EVIDENCE UNEARTHED DURING 'THE SEARCH BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT SUCH FRANCHISE INCOME WAS NO T DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THESE YEARS. (F) VERIFICATION OF RECORD PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T SHOWED THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF OWNED/CONTROLLED OUT LETS AND FRANCHISEE OUTLETS OF THE APPELLANT DURING VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED AS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER AFFIDAVIT DATED 18/03/2010. FROM THE DETAILS WHICH ARE PART O F THE AFFIDAVIT, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE A Y 2004-05, THE RE WERE ONLY FOUR OWNED OUTLETS AND THERE WERE TWENTY-ONE FRANCHISEE OUTLETS. NO EVIDENCE TO DISPUTE THE AFFIRMATIONS IN THE AFFIDAV IT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDIN GS 6.3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ESTIMATED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS .88,00,000/- IS BASED' ON MISCONCEPTION OF THE FACTUAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF OUTLETS IN EXISTENCE DURING THE RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS WELL AS ON THE SUSPICION THAT THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL ALSO SINCE SHE HAD MADE A DISCLOSURE DURING THE PERIOD R ELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED BUT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2004-05 HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH COULD SUPPORT SUCH PRESUMPT ION AS MADE BY THE AO IN HER CASE. THE PRESUMPTION OF THE AO IS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION AND NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHIRA JLAL GIRIDHARILAL V CIT 26 ITR 736(SC) THAT MERE EXISTEN CE OF REASON FOR SUSPICION WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO EVIDENCE. SINCE T HE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON MERE SUSPICION AND WI THOUT ANY 15 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 EVIDENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAM E IS HEREBY DELETED. (DELETED ADDITION OF RS.88,00,000/ -). 6.7 WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, WE DISMISS THIS GSORUND OF APPEAL. 7. GROUND NO. 3: 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE / ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.14,04,175/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.17,32,51 1/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-REFUNDAB LE SECURITIES. 7.1 THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RE CEIVED FRESH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.17,32,511/- AS PER BALANCE SHEET. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPIES OF ACCOUNT DU LY CONFIRMED INDICATING COMPLETE ADDRESS, PAN AND WARD/CIRCLE IN RESPECT OF THESE DEPOSITS. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 12. 12.2007 FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATIONS. FROM PERUSAL OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS IT WAS' CLEAR THAT THESE DEPOSITS HAV E BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM VARIOUS FRANCHISEES TO WHOM OUTLETS HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED DURING THE YEAR. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN PURSUANCE OF PARA 3.2.1 OF 'FRANCHISEE PROPOSAL-FER NS 'N' PETALS' WHICH DEALS WITH FRANCHISEE FEE ETC. WHICH ARE NON- REFUNDABLE. AS SUCH, HE CONCLUDED THAT THESE DEPOSI TS CONSTITUTE 16 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS.17,32,511/- WAS ADDED TO TH E INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY HER DURING THE YEAR. 7.2 LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND HT ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE REMAND RE PORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REJOINDER OF THE APPE LLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED COPY OF THE RELEVANT FRANCHI SEE AGREEMENT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ALTHOUGH THE AO H AS RAISED GENERAL OBJECTION THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT W AS ALLOWED TWO' OPPORTUNITIES VIDE LETTERS DATED 03/10 107 AND 06/12/2007 FOR FURNISHING DETAILS AND EVIDENCES DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED T O SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED HAV E BEEN MADE. I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ALL OW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/S 46A AND PROCEED TO DECIDED THE ISSUE. 7.3.1 IN HIS REMAND REPORT, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS COPIED WRONG FIGURES OF REFUNDABLE AND NON-REFUNDAB LE SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION AS TO NON-TAXABILITY OF REFU NDABLE DEPOSITS IS ACCEPTABLE. AT THE SAME TIME, HE HAS EM PHASIZED THAT THE NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT BEING ONE TIME NON- REFUNDABLE REVENUE RECEIPT IS TO BE TREATED AS THE APPELLANT'S INCOME. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE WHILE DECIDING T HE APPEALS IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2003-04 . THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS.17,32,511/- THE ADDITION OF RS.3,28,336/- (RS . 4,48,168/- RECEIVED AS NON REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPO SIT MINUS RS.1, 19,832/- CREDITED AS INCOME ON DEFERRED BASIS) IS JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT. THE APPELLANT GETS A PART IAL RELIEF OF RS.14,04,175/- ONLY. 17 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 7.3 WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THESE FINDINGS OF LD. C IT(A) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FIN DING IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AS T O NON TAXABILITY OF REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS IS ACCEPTABLE, TH E QUESTION OF CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE D OES NOT ARISE. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.4: 4. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.6,64,910/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF SUPPRESSION OF INCOME FROM SELF CONTROL OUTLETS. 8.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BASED ON HIS FINDINGS RECORD ED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITION OF RS.88 LACS DELETED TH E ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE SOL E PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE FRANCHISEES AGREEMENTS. 8.2 WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE WHILE DISPOSING O FF GROUND NO.2 OF THIS APPEAL. CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HELD THAT THE ESTIMATED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S BASED ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND R AISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 5 : 18 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 5. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.12,07,705/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.14,49,24 6/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF CLOSING STOCK. 9.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ON 23.12.2005, ANNEXURE A-5 (BUNCH OF LOOSE PA PERS) WAS SEIZED. AS PER PAGE 14 TO 39 OF THIS ANNEXURE, CLOS ING/OPENING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PREMISES AT VAS ANT VIHAR AS ON 31.03.2004 AND 01.04.2004 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.3,41,491/- AS AGAINST TOTAL CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 99,950/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 03.10.2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES IN CLOSING STOCK AS POINTED OUT ABOVE. IN HER REPLY DATED 1311 .2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING ST OCK OF RS.3,41,491/- REPRESENTS THE CLOSING STOCK OF ALL T HREE OUTLETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ORE TOGETHER KNOWN AS V ASANT VIHAR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDS THAT STOCK OF R S 99,950/- AS ON 31 03 2004 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS PE R THE COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS, THEREFORE, THERE IS BOUND TO BE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST AND TAG PRICE VALUATION OF STOCK. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT BOTH THE VALUATION S OF CLOSING STOCK I.E. AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AND AS EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS REFERRED TO ABOVE HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF. IF T HE ARGUMENT 19 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS BOUND TO BE DIFFERENC E IN THE COST AND TAG PRICE OF VALUATION OF STOCK THEN THE GP OF THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO GO UP TO 200% AS AGAINST THE GP OF HARDLY 20% TO 25% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE VALUE OF STOCK DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, A SITUATION THE ASSESSEE HERSELF WOULD NOT LIKE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE VAR IOUS ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM A ND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS VALUATION OF STOCK IS O NLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OF THE SIX OUTLETS; SHE IS RUNNING AS PER THE L IST OF OUTLETS SUBMITTED BY HER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. TOTE! UNDISCLOSED CLOSINGS STOCK FOR ALL THE SIX OU TLETS CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 14,49,246/- TA KING UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK FOR VASANT VIHAR BRANCH A T RS.2,41,541/- (RS. 3,41,491- RS. 99,950). THIS WOUL D MEAN AN ADDITION OF RS. 14, 49, 246/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF CLOSING STOCK AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE. 9.2 LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 9.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AS NOTED BY THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF STOCK AS ON 110412004 AT THE VASANT VIHAR OUTLET AS REFLECTE D IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE STOCK AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. AS SUCH THE DIFFERENCE IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, I' DO NOT AGREE WITH THE AO 'S ESTIMATION OF SIMILAR DIFFERENCE OF STOCK IN OTHER OUTLETS OF THE 20 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY BASIS. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY THREE OUTLE TS DURING THE YEAR WHEREAS THE AO HAS ESTIMATED SUCH DIFFEREN CE OF STOCK IN RESPECT OF SIX OUTLETS, WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. SUCH ESTIMATED ADDITION WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC EVIDEN CE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AGAINST THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE S USTAINED. THUS, ONLY THE ADDITION TO .THE TUNE OF THE DIFFERE NCE FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE DECLARED STOCK FOR VAS ANT VIHAR BRANCH I.E. RS.2,41,541/- IS SUSTAINED. THE A PPELLANT GETS RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,07.705. 9.3 THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL F INDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND D ISMISS THIS GROUND. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND DISMISSED. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 STAND DISMISS ED FOR NON PROSECUTION AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 STANDS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2016. SD./- SD./- (J.S. REDDY) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *KAVITA ARORA/SP. 21 I.T.A.NO. 2409-2 413/DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12/05/16 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER