M/s. Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2799/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6712 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Benefit of exemption; Commercial expediency; Set aside
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2799/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS C/O S. KUMAR JAIN & ASSOCIATES 2481/9, GURUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005 PAN NO.AALFS0015Q VS. ACIT CIRCLE 33 (1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJEEV SAXENA, ADVOCATE MS. SUMANGLA SAXENA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. N. K. BANSAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12/09/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/10/2019 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 OF CIT(A)-26, NEW DELHI RELA TING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.09.2007 PAGE | 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,75,420/- AFTER CLAI MING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,14,78,818/- U/S.10A @ 90% OF THE TOTAL BUSI NESS PROFIT OF RS.1,27,54,242/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND THE ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS PASSED ON 23.12.2009 DETERMINI NG THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.47,30,830/-. WHILE DOING SO THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10A AND THE BENEFIT OF NETTING OFF THE INTEREST OF RS.38,39,642/- EARNED ON THE FDR. THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO PARTLY AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF N ETTING. THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E TRIBUNAL VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER NUMBER 2963, 2969, 2968 AND 2967/DEL/2010 ORDER DATED 27.08.2010 REMANDED THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION F OR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION STRI CTLY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 57(III) OF THE IT ACT. D ESPITE OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE AO NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.47,30,830/-. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF TH E AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE HONBLE ITAT H AD RESTORED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A LIMITED PUR POSE OF DETERMINING THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION STRICTLY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT BUT OWING TO THE NON-COMPLIANCE HE RESTORED TO ASSE SSEE THE SAME INCOME OF RS.47,30,830/- WHICH WAS ASSESSED IN TERMS 23.12.20 09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PAGE | 3 HAD THUS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE ON ALLOWABLE DEDUCT ION IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 57 (III) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HA S ALSO NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S. 57 (III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTIO N THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HA VE OBSERVED AS UNDER :- IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABL E TO PROVE THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY SUB MISSIONS TO PROVE THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE APPELLANT HAD ANY NEXUS WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ON WHICH THE INTEREST WAS PAID WAS CONVERTED IN TO THE FDRS ON WHICH INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.38,39,642/- WAS RECEIVED. ON PERUSAL OF MATE RIAL ON RECORD, FIND FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,40,70,000/- UNDER EBRD SCHEME AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.55,12,500/- UNDER PCFC SCHEME M AINTAINED WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. BESIDES, IT HAD ALSO SHOWN SECURED LOAN OF RS.1,57,00,000/- WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF THE DEMAND LOAN. THE EBRD SCHEME PERTAIN S TO RE-DISCOUNT OF EXPORT BILLS. PCFC MEANS PACKING CREDIT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. UND ER SCHEME THE LOANS ARE VITAL FOR EXPORTERS AS THEY USE THIS FUND TO PROCURE RAW-MATE RIAL AND BECAUSE THESE LOANS ARE RELATIVELY CHEAP AND EXPORTERS SAVE ON COST AND IS THUS COMPETITIVE. PCFC LOANS ARE OFFERED BY THE BANKS TO THE EXPORTERS OF DIAMOND JE WELLERY. FURTHER, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LOANS UNDER PCFC PROVIDED BY THE BANKS TO THE EX PORTERS, ONE PRE-SHIPMENT CREDIT FACILITY AND THE OTHER POST-SHIPMENT CREDIT FACILIT Y. THUS, THESE AMOUNTS HAD NO INEXTRICABLE LINK OR INTRINSICAL CONNECTION WITH TH E FDRS. 6.1 SECTION 57 (III) IS THOUGH SIMILAR TO SECTION 3 7 (1) BUT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 57 (III) IS NARROWER THAN THAT OF 37 (1) BECAUSE UNLESS THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNIN G INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION I.E. THERE MUST BE CLEAR NE XUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EARNED. 6.2 THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE HAD FAILED TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS HAD INTRINSIC AND INSEGGREGABLE NEXUS WITH THE FACI LITIES PROVIDED UNDER THE EBRD AND PCFC SCHEMES OR FOR THAT MATTER WITH DEMAND LOAN. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES PAGE | 4 U/S 57 (III) AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE EXPENDITURE MUST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF SUCH INCOME. 6.3 THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE INTEREST EARNED HAD NEXUS WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID, I HOLD THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION U/S. 57 (III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FROM THE INTEREST INCOME EARNE D BY IT. ACCORDINGLY, NO INTERFERENCE IS MADE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LD. CO MM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 26, NEW DELHI HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.47,30,830/- AS AGAINST I NCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 12,75,420/-. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO COMPUTING THE INTEREST INCOME TO T HE TUNE OF RS.38,39,342/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ASSESSEE F IRM IS 100% EXPORTER, WHOSE INCOME IS THEREFORE EXEMPT U/S 10A OF THE I.T.ACT AND INTEREST EARNED ON THE DEPOSITS WHI CH WERE PLEDGED FOR BUSINESS LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAI D TO THE BANK, DUE TO WHICH IT IS ESSENTIAL TO GIVE BENEFIT OF NETTING OFF THE INTEREST BEFORE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AS THE SAME IS NOT IN ADHERENCE WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE HON BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN NETTING OFF THE INTE REST WAS ALLOWED AND SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS REGARDING RE-COMPUT ATION WERE GIVEN TO THE AO. 4. THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WOULD BE TAXED ONLY WHAT IS EXCESS AFTER N ETTING OFF THE SAME AGAINST INTEREST PAID, AS BOTH - LOANS REC EIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS WELL AS INTEREST EARNED ON THE PAGE | 5 DEPOSITS/ FOR THE BUSINESS, ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO EACH OTHER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIL ED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SYNOPSIS THAT THE SAME IS SELF EXPLANATORY :- ASSESSEE IS A 100% EXPORTER OF JEWELLERY. IT USED T O IMPORT GOLD BARS AND AFTER MAKING JEWELLERY, THE SAME WAS EXPORTED. THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE CLAIM BY EXPORTER FOR DEDUC TION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS PROVIDED AT PAGE 15 . THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN FTZ/EPZ/SEZ ON 15- 05-2000 ASH THE YEAR IN CONCERN WAS THE 8 TH YEAR. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS WAS RS.89, 87,10,802/- AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE EXPORT UNIT WAS THE SAME AS SHOWN AT IN THE CONCERNED ANNEXURE. SIMILARLY, EXPORT TURNOVER WAS THE SAME AS SHOWN AT S.NO.13. THE PROFIT DERIVED BY THE BUSINES S OR BY THEIR UNDERTAKING WAS RS. 1,27,54,242/- AND AO HAS ALLOWE D DEDUCTION U/S 10A ON THIS AMOUNT @ 90% (PB PG 16). THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST PAID AGAINST THE BUSINESS OF RS.49 ,85,698/- (PB PG 18) AFTER NETTING OFF THE SAME. IT IS SUBMITTED THA T CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE BALANCE SHEET (PB PG 17) WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THA T ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SECURED LOANS OF RS. 1.57 CRORES AND HAS OBTAIN ED EBRD I.E. EXPORT BILL REDISCOUNTING OF RS.9,40,70,000/- AND P CFC I.E. PACKING CREDIT FINANCE OF RS.55,12,500/-. THUS, MORE THAN R S. 11.50 CRORES HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM BANKS. COPY OF CREDIT FACILITIE S LETTER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA DATED 28 TH NOV 2005 IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 47 - 51. IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT BANK HAS SANCTIONED THE CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NECESSARY TO STAT E THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET (PB17) YOUR GOODSELF WOULD NOTICE THAT FDRS H AS BEEN SHOWN PAGE | 6 OF RS.3,99,76,865/- AND INTEREST RECEIVABLE HAS BEE N SHOWN OF RS.21,10,098/-. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, HAS DECLARED ACCRUED INTEREST OF RS.38,39,642/- AS NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER ADJUSTING AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID OF RS.88,28,084/- , ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.49,85,698/- A FTER CLAIMING CERTAIN BANK CHARGES OF RS.2,746/-. DETAIL OF FDR, GIVEN AS MARGIN MONEY HAS BEEN FILED AT PAGE 22. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FDRS ARE MADE AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM THE BANK AS MARGIN MONEY AS REQUIRED BY THE BA NK FOR OPENING THE LC AND IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD FIRMS INTEREST AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN THE SAME WERE KEPT IN THE FDR SO THAT T ILL THE TIME LC IS ENCASHED THE ASSESSEE COULD ALSO EARN INTEREST O N THE MARGIN MONEY PROVIDED TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE FIRM DID NOT H AVE ITS OWN FUNDS AS CLEARLY DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND SO IT HAS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE BANK LIMITS TO FORM THE FDR AND P ROVIDE MARGIN MONEY AS REQUIRED BY THE BANK ON WHICH IT HAS EARNE D INTEREST. THUS, THESE FDRS WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOTICED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN AY 2003- 04. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF VODAFONE SOUTH LTD. V. CIT ITA NO. 334/2014 (PB 85 TO 98), HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND HELD AT PARA 20 PB 95- 96, WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT AND SUMMARIZED THEIR VIEW BRIEFLY STATED AS UNDER: (I) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 57(III), THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER THE TRANSACTION FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE WAS L AID OUT WAS A PRUDENT ONE WHICH RESULTED IN ULTIMATE GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT WHETHER IT WAS PROPERLY ENTERED INTO AS A PART OF ASSESSEES LEGIT IMATE COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKING, IN ORDER INDIRECTLY TO FACILITATE THE CARRYING ON OF ITS BUSINESS. (II) THE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED UNDER A NY LEGAL OBLIGATION, YET IT IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE IF IT WAS INCURRED ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IN OTHER WORDS , IF IT IS SUCH EXPENDITURE AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD INCUR FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. (III) ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEE N THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS NOT NECESSARILY THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE PAGE | 7 ITSELF, THE REVENUE CANNOT PUT ITSELF IN THEIR ARM CHAIR OF THE BUSINESS AND DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THE BUSINESS IS REASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (IV) WHERE IN THE PRE-OPERATIVE STATE THE SURPLUS FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ARE KEPT BY AN ASSESSEE IN FIXE D DEPOSITS, THE INTEREST EARNED THEREON WOULD BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN BORROWED WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE NETTED A GAINST SUCH INTEREST INCOME IN THE PRE-OPERATIVE PHASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT IN THE PR E-OPERATIVE PHASE BUT RUNNING ITS BUSINESS FOR THE LAST MORE THAN EIGHT Y EARS, HENCE THE CONDITION STATED AT S.NO.(IV) IS NOT APPLICABLE ON IT AND THE RE WAS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE EARNINGS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING MARGIN MONEY AFTER THE DRAWING FROM THE SAME BANK A CCOUNT AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NETTING OFF AGAINST THE INCOME PAID IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AS HELD IN ASSESSEEES OW N CASE IN AY 2003-04. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED THIS CLAIM IN AY 2009-10 AND 2010-11 COPY OF THESE ORDERS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 79 TO 84. IT IS THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 6. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE NEXUS OF INTEREST RECEIVED AND INTEREST PAID THE NETTING OFF OF SUCH INTEREST SHOULD BE ALL OWED. FURTHER THE AO IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED THE NETTING OFF OF INTEREST IN A.Y.2009-10 AND 2010-11. THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO REASON FOR DECIDING FROM HIS STAND. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND REFERRING TO THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2006-07 VID E ITA NO.3157/DEL/2009 ORDER DATED 10.06.2011 SUBMITTED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. FURTHER APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND 2007-08 HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY PAGE | 8 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26.08.2010. THEREFORE , HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AO IN ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE REPEATED THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE INTEREST EARNED ON FD AMOUNTING TO RS.38,39,642/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREBY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10A AND TH E BENEFIT OF NETTING WAS NOT ALLOWED. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UP HELD THE ACTION OF THE AO THE REASONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE PRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK WE FIND THE ORDER FO R A.Y.2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF T HE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE FURTHER FIND THE AO HIMSELF HAS ALLOWE D THE BENEFIT OF NETTING OFF OF INTEREST AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTIO N U/S. 10A FOR A.Y.2009-10 AND 2010-11, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 79 TO 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROP ER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIV E ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT TH E FDS ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND NOT DIS REGARD THE PAGE | 9 STATUTORY NOTICES FAILING WHICH THE AO IS AT LIBERT Y TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT A CCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.10.2019. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R.K PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 30.10.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS 30.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 30.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 30.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER