Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6222 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-01-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
08-05-2015
Judgement Text
ACSWNVIN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE 12(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL HOUSE LTD. T-2, DDA COMMUNITY CENTRE, SHEIKH SARAI, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI PAN AAACI 0093G (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. NEERAJ JAIN, ADVOCATE & SH. BHARATH JANARTHANA, ADV. ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-IV, NEW DELHI DATED 25TH FEBRUARY 2015 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,04,80,56 2/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEBIT OF DISCOUNT IN PROFIT & LOS S A/C. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,88,751/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES. DATE OF HEARING 02.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.01.2019 ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.11,61, 16,414/- WHICH WAS REVISED ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2008, SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 13,05,5 2,249/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE RECEIPTS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RECONCILIATION CHART AS UNDER : PARTICULARS TOTAL INCOME AS PER LEDGER TDS FORMS DEPOSITED TDS @5.61% AIR PASSAGE 36,54,53,749 2,07,11,980 2,05,01,855 ADD: RAIL INCOME/BROKERAGE 11,64,763 TOTAL COMMISSION (AIR PASSAGE) 36,66,18,511 LESS: DISCOUNT ALLOWED/HANDLING CHARGES 22,68,03,687 NET INCOME AS PER ANNEXURE A 13,98,14,824 2,07,11,980 2,05,01,955 3. FROM THE ABOVE RECONCILIATION CHART, IT WAS NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.22,68,03,687/- TOWARDS DISCOUNT ALLOWED/ HANDLING CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED 5% COMMISSION FROM AIRLINES AN D 3% IS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR WHOM THE TICKETS WERE BOOKED. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED BASIC COMMISSION FRO M DOMESTIC TRAVELS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,77,93,007/- AND ON INTERNATIONAL TR AVELS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,31,18,315/- TOTALING TO RS.19,09,11,322/- BUT FRO M THE ABOVE CHART, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE HANDLING CHARGES ARE TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 22,13,91,884/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SOME CASES, ENTIRE COMMI SSION IS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS AND INITIALLY AIRLINES WERE GIVING COMMIS SION AT THE RATE OF 7% BUT ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 3 SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED UP TO 5% AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSING COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 5% CONTINUOUSLY. THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME EV IDENCES IN WHICH ENTIRE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PASSED ON AND IN SOME CASES 5% HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND 3% HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTICED THAT NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FURNISHED THAT IT HAS PASSED ON THE COMMISSION MORE THAN THE COMMISSION R ECEIVED BY IT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE T HAT EVEN THE PLB/OR COMMISSION IS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE IT IS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF BOOKING OF AIR TICKETS. IT IS DECIDED BY AIRLINE S AT THE SUBSEQUENT DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED COMMISSION OF RS.19,09,11,322/- BUT HAS DEBITED TOWARDS DISCOUNT AND HANDLING CHARGES RS.22,13,91,884/- AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,04,80 ,562/- COULD NOT BE RECONCILED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED T HIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL S @ 60% WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 15%. ACCOR DINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,88,751/ - AS EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE D ELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT . ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 4 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE OF COMMISSION RE CEIVED AND COMMISSION PAID. THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE CIT (A) ARE N OT APPLICABLE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN RESPECT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND RELIED ON THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HE H AS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKES THEREIN. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN AUDIT ED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. NO ADVERSE REMARKS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY H IM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE EN TIRE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A). THE FINDINGS REACHED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : 6.7 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS TAKEN INCORRECT FACTS RELATING TO VARIOUS TYPES OF DISCOUNTS/ HANDL ING CHARGES RECEIVED/PASSED ON. THE DETAILS FILED SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS OUT OF TH E TOTAL COMMISSION INCLUDING OVERRIDING COMMISSION AND PRODUCTIVELY LINK BONUS A GGREGATING TO RS 36,54,53,748/-, PASSED ON A SUM OF RS 22,13,91,984/- AS DISCOUNT/HA NDLING CHARGES TO THE CUSTOMERS AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 5 S. NO. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT RECEIVED DISCOUNT/ HANDLING CHARGES 1. BASIC COMMISSION ON DOMESTIC AIR TICKETS 7,02,86,610 2,95,99,447 2. BASIC COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL AIR TICKETS 12,06,24,712 8,15,91,166 3. OVER RIDING COMMISSION (ORC) 16,11,98,890 11,02,01,271 4. PRODUCTIVITY LINKED BONUS (PLB) 1,33,43,536 - TOTAL 36,54,53,748 22,13,91,884 6.8 IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT TAKEN EFFORT S TO APPRECIATE THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AGENCY FOR AIR TRAVEL AND THE METHOD OF REPO RTING/ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED IN THIS SECTOR. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 29 (DELHI), HAVE TAKEN DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THIS PROCEDURE, THE RELEVANT EXCERPTS OF WHICH ARE AS BE LOW: 'WHAT IS NOT DISPUTED IS THAT THE IATA MONITORS THE TRADE IN AIR TRAFFIC AND LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR CARRYING ON CIVIL AIR TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IATA PRESCRIBES PSA AGREEMENTS WHICH MOST AIRLINES HAVE E XECUTED WITH THEIR TRAVEL AGENTS. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION WHICH THE ASSESSEE-AIRLINES ARE REQUIRED TO PAY TO THE TRAVEL AGENT IS FIXED BY IATA. THIS C OMMISSION IS TERMED AS STANDARD COMMISSION. THE IATA COMMISSION, THAT IS, THE STAND ARD COMMISSION PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE-AIRLINES TO TRAVEL AGENT PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1999 WAS 9 PER CENT AND THEREAFTER IT DROPPED TO 7 PER CENT. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE(S)-AIRLINE(S) WHICH OPERATE FROM INDIA ARE CONCERNED THEY ARE REQ UIRED TO FILE A FARE LIST WITH THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION (IN SHORT 'DG CA') FOR ITS APPROVAL. THIS FARE WHICH IS CALLED THE DGCA FARE IS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT BELOW T HE IATA FARE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE FOR THE PERIOD, UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE-A IRLINES WERE PROHIBITED FROM MENTIONING A FARE BELOW THE IATA/DGCA APPROVED FARE ON AIR TICKETS. WHAT IS OF IMPORTANCE IS THAT THIS IS REFERRED TO AS THE PUBLIS HED FARE ON WHICH THE COMMISSION FIXED BY IATA, THAT IS, THE STANDARD COMMISSION IS PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE-AIRLINES TO THEIR RESPECTIVE TRAVEL AGENTS. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THA T IATA IN ORDER TO STREAMLINE THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PRO VIDES A SERVICE FOR SETTLEMENT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TRAVEL AGENT(S) AN D THEIR ASSESSEE(S)-AIRLINE(S). THIS IS DONE BROADLY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: (I) IATA PRINTS NEUTRAL TICKETS AND DISTRIBUTES THEM TO ALL AGENTS. (II) AGENTS ISSUE TICKETS TO PASSENGERS AND SEND AUDIT C OUPONS TO THE BSP. (III) THE BSP CAPTURES THE INFORMATION FROM THESE A UDIT COUPONS AND PREPARES A BILLING STATEMENT WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS THE GROSS/PUBLISHED FARE, STANDARD IATA COMMISSION PAID TO AGENTS AS WELL AS THE SUPPLEMENTARY COMMISS ION. THE NET FARE PAYABLE BY THE TRAVEL AGENT TO THE ASSESSEE-AIRLINES IS ALSO REFLE CTED IN THE BILLING STATEMENT. ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 6 (IV) THE TRAVEL AGENT THEN PAYS A SINGLE CHEQUE TO IATA/BSP FOR TICKETS SOLD ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS ASSESSEE-AIRLINES, WHO THEN DISTRIBUTE T HE MONEY RECEIVED TO RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE-AIRLINES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT EACH BILLING ANALYSIS RECEIV ED FROM THE BSP CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: (A) THE NAME OF THE AGENT; (B) IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE TICKETS SOLD; (C) GROSS VALUE OF THE TICKETS SOLD (D) STANDARD COMMISSION OR THE IATA COMMISSION PAYA BLE TO TRAVEL AGENT, AND (E) THE SUPPLEMENTARY COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE DIFF ERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS FARE, NET FARE, TAXES AND STANDARD COMMISSION PAYABLE TO T HE TRAVEL AGENT.' 6.9 I FIND THAT IN REACHING TO HIS CONCLUSION, THE LD. AO HAS ONLY MADE COGNITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT FILED B EFORE HIM, WITHOUT HOWEVER, MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY EITHER FROM ANY OF THE AIRL INES OR FROM ANY OF THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH WAS CRUCIAL TO PROVE WHETHER THE APPELLANT HA D DEBITED EXCESS COMMISSION WITHOUT, ACTUALLY PASSING ON THE SAME TO THE CUSTOM ERS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT BEFORE FORMING THIS OPINION, THE AO HAD NOT CONFRON TED THE APPELLANT WITH THIS ADVERSE OBSERVATION BY SHOW CAUSING IT TO EXPLAIN. HAD THE LD. AO DONE SO, IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH SPECIF IC DETAILED EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DUE TO ABSENC E OF DIRECTIONS OF THE AO TO REQUIRE THE APPELLANT FILE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES, THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER CAUSED TO FILE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING , WHICH COULD HAVE ALLAYED THE CONCERNS OF THE AO. 6.10 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT FIL ED BEFORE ME BSP SETTLEMENT ADVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE AMOUNT CHARGED TO CUSTOME RS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BASIS PRICE OF THE TICKET, TAX VALUE, STANDARD DISCOUNT, TRADE DISCOUNT AND OVERRIDING COMMISSION. FURTHER, AGREEMENTS WITH IMPORTANT CUST OMERS WERE ALSO FILED, WHICH SHOW THAT THE PASSING ON THE DISCOUNT/HANDLING CHAR GES WAS AS PER AGREEMENTS SIGNED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHER, THE A PPELLANT ALSO FILED COPIES OF INVOICES ISSUED TO THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH REFLECT THE DETAILS OF TICKETS CHARGES AFTER ADJUSTING THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DISCOUNT. IN MY VIEW, THE ABOVE EV IDENCES ARE IN THE NATURE OF 3RD PARTY EVIDENCE, WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO VERIFY WHETH ER THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED ANY EXCESS DISCOUNT IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT COMPARED TO THE DISCOUNT ACTUALLY PASSED TO ITS CUSTOMERS OR NOT. THESE EVIDENCES REMAINED IN THE P OSSESSION OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION SINCE JANUARY, 2009 FOR OVER A PERIOD O F 6 YEARS. DESPITE SEVERAL REMINDERS FROM THIS OFFICE, THE LD. AO COULD NOT MA KE ANY ADVERSE FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS OF FICE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE APPEAL IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF BUSINESS O F APPELLANT, AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIN GAPORE AIRLINES LTD. (SUPRA). ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 7 6.10.2 THE ABOVE EVIDENCES WERE GOT VERIFIED BY ME IN THE PRESENCE OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE LD. COUNSEL. CERTAIN CLIE NT-WISE BILLS WERE IDENTIFIED ON WHICH, DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARD ING THE BASIS FOR EXTENDING DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN, WHICH WAS DULY VERIFIED AND WAS FOUND IN ORDER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, THE RELEVANT INVOICES, LEDGER ACCOUNT AND THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT. 6.11 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EVIDENCES, I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY IT AND BASED ON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING BEING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY IT AND NO INFIRMITY IS OBSERVED THEREIN. THE APPELL ANT HAS BEEN PASSING ON A PART OF BASIC DISCOUNT AND OVERRIDING DISCOUNT TO ITS CLIEN TS. THIS IS EVIDENT BY THE AGREEMENT, CLIENT LEDGER ACCOUNT, INVOICES AND BSP SETTLEMENT. WHILE BASIC DISCOUNT IS ALWAYS PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS, ORC, WHICH IS MADE AVAI LABLE TO IT BY AIRLINES IN CASE OF SPECIFIC DEALS ONLY, IS ALSO SHARED WITH CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE, THE LD. AO'S FINDING IN THIS REGARD IS NOT BASED ON THE PREVALENT MARKET PRACTIC ES AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGAPORE A IRLINES (SUPRA), NOR SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. THE PRODUCTIVITY LINKED BONUS (PLB), WHENEVE R GIVEN BY THE AIRLINES SUBSEQUENTLY, IS OBVIOUSLY NOT PASSED ON TO THE CLI ENTS. 6.12 I ALSO OBSERVE THAT BEFORE REJECTING THE TRAD ING RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE LD. AO HAS NEITHER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) NOR MADE THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BASED ON THE AO'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE/INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY CONDUCTED FROM ANY OF THE CLIENTS OR AIRLINES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION WITHOUT SUPPORT OF FACTS AND LAW CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 9. ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION : 6.2 REGARDING THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL BY WH ICH THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON UPS AND PRINTER @ 15% INSTEAD OF 60 %, I FIND THAT LOT OF WATER HAS FLOWN SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO IN DECEMBER, 2008. THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS NOW WELL SETTLED WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. (2010) TIOL 636. DECISION OF SEVERAL HIGH COURTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, IN WH ICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UPS AND PRINTERS ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM A ND ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60%. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED IN FAVO UR OF THE APPELLANT. 10. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) DO NOT STA ND CONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE THE ABOVE DECISION OF LEA RNED CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ITA NO. 2787/DEL/2015 8 ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SE NT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT, BUT HE DID NOT SEND ANY REMAND REPOR T ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF 6 YEARS T IME. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A), AFTER GIVING SEVERAL REMINDERS, HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVE D THAT THE AO HAD NOTHING TO SAY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. A CCORDINGLY, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.01.2019. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (L.P. S AHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25.01.2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI
