ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Neel Gagan Polymers & Marketing (P) Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2776/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 277620114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAGAN SOOD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2776 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ITO, WARD 13(2), VS. M/S. NEEL GAGAN POLYMERS NEW DELHI & MARKETING (P) LTD., 29, HEMKUNT COLONY, NEW DELHI. GIR / PAN:AAACN5481GF I.T.A. NO.1938 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S. NEEL GAGAN POLYMERS VS. ITO, WARD 13(2), & MARKETING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI 29, HEMKUNT COLONY, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAGAN SOOD, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. S. SINGHVI, CA ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.03.2010. THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO. 1938/DEL/2010 WAS EARLIER HEARD AND WAS D ECIDED VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 23.07.2010. THIS APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 2 PURPOSES. HOWEVER, ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE VIDE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 79/DEL/2011, THE SAID ORD ER WAS RECALLED PARTIALLY VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 09.10.2013. THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECALLED ONLY GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL WHICH WAS ORDERED TO BE READJUDI CATED ALONG WITH REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2776/DEL.2010. GROUN D NO.3 IN THE SAID APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO. 1938/DEL/2010 R EADS AS UNDER: 3. (I) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PROT ECTIVE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS EVEN WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE FOR E NHANCEMENT AS REQUIRED U/S 251(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 OR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. (II) THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL B ASIS OR PROPER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION OR ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO P RESUME ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ENTRIES FL OWING FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. (III) THAT WHOLE BASIS OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROC EEDING IS ON ALLEGED GROUND ABOUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND AS S UCH FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF CIT(A) THAT SAME REPRESEN T UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS SELF CONTRAD ICTORY AND AGAINST THE BASIS OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148. (IV) THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR SOURCE IN SUPPORT OF A LLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND AS SUCH IMPUGNED ADDITION IS WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS. (V) THAT IN ANY CASE, THE SAID ADDITION IS HIGHLY ARBIT RARY, EXCESSIVE AND WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OR PEAK CREDIT. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I .T.A.NO. 2776/DEL/2010 CONSISTS OF 3 GRIEVANCES WITH THE ACT ION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,71,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE 2 ND GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ON ACCOUNT OF ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WH ICH HE HAD DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.1,23,110/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 3 ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME EARNED FROM ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE 3 RD GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.36,05,233/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AGAINST THE A.O.S ACTION BY WHIC H HE HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF SOME IN FORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTME NT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING INTO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE AND THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DATED 26.12.2007 HAD MADE THRE E ADDITIONS ONE OF WHICH BEING ESTIMATED COMMISSION INCOME FROM ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,23,110/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE TOTAL CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.44,24,396/- AND BY A PPLYING 2.5% COMMISSION ON THIS AMOUNT, HE ARRIVED AT COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.1,23,110/-. THE 2 ND ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN TH E FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE THE 3 RD ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.36,05,233/- BEING AMOUNT O F ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS THE QUANTUM OF WHICH WA S ARRIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK. AGGR IEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 4 ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 RELYING UPON THE RATIO OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS. AS REGARDS THE PROT ECTIVE ADDITIONS, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ADDITIO N WAS JUSTIFIED BUT HELD THAT IT SHOULD BE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND NOT ON P ROTECTIVE BASIS. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IN THIS RES PECT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY GIVEN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS THROUGH C ASH AND CLEARING DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BUT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES WITH ANY PLAUSIBLE EXP LANATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY JU STIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. BUT IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE FAILURE TO CORROBORATE T HE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MUST NECESSARILY RESULT WITH THE A DDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THIS FACT HAS FOUND MENTION IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHICH NO REJOINDER HAS BEE N FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE T HE SOURCE OF THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEN NO BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS ARE PRODUCED, NO CONFIRMATIONS ARE FILED AND/OR NO EXPLANATION IS RENDERED WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION U/S 68 IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. REFER ENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE CASE LAW OF SUBHASH CHANDER S3KHRI VS DCIT 2 90 ITSR 300 (P&H) WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 1993 -94 AND THE COURTS UPHELD THE ADDITION U/S 68 MADE TO ASSESSEE S INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT S INCE THE ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PROVED. THE RATIO OF THIS CASE LAW WA S FOLLOWED BY JASPAL SINGH VS CIT 290 ITR 306 AND TIRATH RAM GUPT A VS CIT 304 ITR 145. 4. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. I THINK, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND ANY SUCH LIKE AD-HOC ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. B EING AD-HOC ADDITION, I ALSO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW POINT OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ADDITION CAN BE REWORKED BY APPLYING RATE 0.5% TO 0.75% INSTEAD OF 2.5% AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE P ASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENC E ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THATS THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R THE APPELLANT IS RIGHT TO SAY THAT IT INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE ADDITION OF RS.1,23,110/- AS THE SAME IS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS TAKEN AS ALLOWED TO THE APP ELLANT. 5. AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. A.R. ARGUED HIS APPEALS GROUND NO.3 IN I.T. A.NO. 1938/DEL/2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD CONVERTED THE PRO TECTIVE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WITHOUT EVEN GIVING NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT AS REQUIRED U/S 251(2) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER INQUIRY / IN VESTIGATION TO PROVE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ENTRIES CR EDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REOPENED FOR EXAMINATION OF ENTRIES OF RS.10 LACS ONLY AND THERE FORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.36,05,233/-ON THE BASIS OF BANK DEPOSITS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT SINCE AS PER THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATIO N WING THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING INTO ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THEREFORE, ADDITION FOR THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE & ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE EARNED ONLY A SMALL CO MMISSION OF ABOUT 0.35% OF ENTRIES INSTEAD OF 2.5% WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 6 WHERE SPECIAL BENCH HAD DECIDED THE INCOME IN SUCH CASES TO BE COMPUTED @ 0.35 PAISA. LD. A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT COMMISS ION AT THE RATE OF 0.35 PAISA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.10 LACS ONLY WHICH FORMED PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED. LD. A.R. FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 23.07.2010 WHICH WAS RECALLED ONLY BECAUSE REVENUE HAD FILED M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND GROUND OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD ALONG WITH REVENUES APPEAL AND NO GROUND WAS TAKEN ON MERITS THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TR IBUNAL ORDER WAS RECALLED ONLY FOR TECHNICAL REASONS. 7. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE SU BSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE IN THE CASE OF BENEFICIARIES ONLY. HE ARGU ED THAT TRANSACTIONS OF CASH DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON T HE SAME DATE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING INTO ENTRIES AND ASSESSEE HAD NOT DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM ACTIVITIES PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF BENEFICIARIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 8. REGARDING REVENUES APPEAL FOR DELETION OF ADDIT ION U/S 68, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IDENTITY OF SHARE APPLICANTS WA S NOT ESTABLISHED AND SINCE IT IS THE CASE OF ENTRY PROVIDER, THE RATIO O F LOVELY EXPORTS AS DECIDED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, CANNOT BE APPLIED. 9. REGARDING DELETION OF COMMISSION INCOME, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED THAT IT WAS INDUL GING INTO BUSINESS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A)S ACTIO N IN DELETING THE SAME ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 7 WAS NOT BASED UPON THE FACTS. LD. A.R. REPLYING TH E REVENUES APPEAL, ARGUED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVE D FROM MRS. MANISHA GUPTA, SUDHA GUPTA AND SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.5,71,244/-. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ALLEGATI ON OF LD. D.R. THAT EXISTENCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS WAS NOT PROVED, IS NO T CORRECT AS SANDEEP GUPTA IS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND MANISHA GUPTA IS WIFE OF SANDEEP & THEREFORE, IDENTITY WAS PROVED AND LD. CIT(A) ON TH E BASIS OF CONFIRMATIONS OF SHARE APPLICANTS AND ON THE BASIS OF BALANCE SHE ETS OF THE APPLICANTS HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROU GH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IN I.T.A.NO. 2776/DEL/2010. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DELETION OF RS.5,71,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. WE FIND THAT A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 AND THEREFORE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WAS FILED WITH LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) A FTER INVITING REMAND REPORT FORM A.O. HAS HELD THAT SHARE APPLICANTS WER E HAVING PAN NUMBERS AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE COMPANY AND WE ALSO FIND THAT SHARE APPLICANTS WERE DIRECTORS OR T HEIR RELATIVES. IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUDHA GUPTA, THE A.O. HAS EVEN RECORDED HER ST ATEMENT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE DO NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL I S DISMISSED. 10.1 THE A.O. HAD CALCULATED THE ALLEGED INCOME BY APPLYING A NOTIONAL RATE OF 2.5% ON THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. OTHER THAN ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 8 DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THERE IS NO PROOF WITH THE A.O. TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE WAS EARNING COMMISSION INC OME. LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 10.2 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, WE FIND THAT IN THE PR ESENT CASE, FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INCOME OF RS.10,00,000/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW OR ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF ALL CREDITS MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT TWO ENTRIES AS REPORTED BY INVESTIGATION WIN G AND AS REFERRED TO IN THE REASON RECORDED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREAD Y TAKEN A VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO PROVE /ESTAB LISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND WE H AVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED COMMISSION. NOW, WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL IN PLACE TO PROVE TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN RESPE CT OF CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF CIT(A) TO CONVERT THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.,36,05,233/- INTO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITI ON. WE FURTHER FIND THAT A.O. HAD MADE THIS ADDITION OF RS.36,05,253/- BY AD DING PEAK CREDIT OF RS.19,50,233/- AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.16,55,000/- W HICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED SPECIFICALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ADDI TION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO A SUM OF RS.10 LACS FOR ENTRIES REFER RED TO IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148. WE, THE REFORE, DELETE THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.36,05,233/- AND RESTRICT THE ADDITIO N ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 LACS BEING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES NOTED IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, AS NO DETAILED INQ UIRY OR INVESTIGATION HAS EITHER BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD. CI T(A) IN RESPECT OF THESE ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 9 TWO ENTRIES AGGREGATING TO RS.10 LACS, WE RESTORE T HE MATER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION IN SO FAR AS THE SUM OFRS.10 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ARE CONCER NED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.36,05,233/- IS RESTRICTED TO RS.10 L ACS WHICH IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION WHO WILL READJUDICATE AFTER PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE FRES H OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS SO THAT A CORRECT AND FAIR POSITION MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD AND PROPER DECISI ON IS ARRIVED AT IN THIS RESPECT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO.3 IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I .T.A.NO. 1938/DEL/2010 WHEREIN WE HAVE TO ADJUDICATE ONLY GR OUND NO.3, WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED WITH GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPE AL FOR WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED AND THE SAME ADJUDICATION WILL APPLY TO GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.3 OF REVENU ES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN NUTSHELL BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH OCT., 2014. SD./- SD./- (I. C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 15 TH OCT., 2014 SP ITA NO.2776 & 1938/DEL/2010 10 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 DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF TYPING DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.