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

ITA 2834/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 283420114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-2834 & 2835/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2004-0 5 & 2009-10) ITO, WARD-18(4), ROOM NO-248, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS ZUARI INVESTMENT LTD., PLOT NO-2, ZAMRUDPUR COMMUNITY CENTRE, KAILASH COLONY EXTN., NEW DELHI-110048. P AN-AAACZ0196R (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .NO.-2833 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE-18(1), ROOM NO-211A, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS ZUARI INVESTMENT LTD., INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, BLOCK-F, 2 ND FLOOR, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. K.V.S.R.KRISHNA, CA ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 OF CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI PER TAINING TO 2004-05, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON IDENTICAL GR OUNDS FOR EACH OF THESE YEARS. FOR READY-REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE DEPAR TMENTAL GROUND FROM ITA NO-2834/DEL/2013 :- I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 2 (I) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF T HE I.T. ACT. (II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE OR RESERVING THE R IGHT TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR 2004-05 ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO HAD DECLARED ITS INCOME AS NIL IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS SUBJECTED TO A PROPO RTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,28,050/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2006 BY THE AO U/S 143(3). AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. THE SAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITAT WHO V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 IN ITA NO-455/DEL/2008 RESTORED THE ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE AO. PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO S TATED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.2,70,36,200/-, RS.15,35,868/- CONSTIT UTED DIVIDEND INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAX. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBI TED EXPENSES OF RS.2,12,64,917/- AGAINST THE TOTAL RECEIPT. OUT OF THE TOTAL DIVIDEND INCOME IT WAS STATED THAT RS.14,48,195/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SH ARES HELD IN GROUP COMPANY TEXMECO. THE SHARES WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN HELD SINCE 1996-97 AND WERE STATED TO BE ACQUIRED OUT OF BUSINESS FUNDS AS SUCH NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE ON FACTS WAS WARRANTED. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,76 ,363/-. 2.1. THE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD IN 2008 -09 ASSESSMENT YEARS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.1,2 2,93,931/-. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISALLOWED RS.94,14,474/ - THE AO MADE A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,82,10,637/-. 2.2. SIMILARLY IN 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR THE RECOR D SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.17,93,032/- CARRIED FORWAR D LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.70,77836/-. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED A DIVIDEND I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 3 OF RS.2,99,86,957/- WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 1 0(34) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D BE NOT MADE. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S OF RS.91,890/- MAY BE MADE. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE NOT TENABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED DIVIDEND FROM FOUR DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS IN STYLE SPA FURNITURE LTD., TEXMACO LTD, VIKAS WSP LTD. AND RELIANCE LIQUID PLUS FUND. THE AO TOOK IN TO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY SEPARATE ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THE CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT REASONABLE THE AO APPLYING RULE 8D MADE A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.29,00,757/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THESE ACTIONS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO PASSED A COMMON ORDER FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. 3.1. CONSIDERING THE FACTS FOR 2004-05 ASSESSMENT Y EAR, HE RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 3. GROUND NO.1, 2 & 3 : THE APPEAL HAS ARISEN AS A RESULT OF ORDER PASSED BY AO IN PURSUANT TO DIRECTION OF THE HONBL E ITAT, WHEREIN, HONBLE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2011 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE, WHEREIN, AO HAS A PPLIED THE RULE 8D AND HAS ARRIVED AT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,76,363/-. IT TH E COMPUTATION CHART IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY AO THAT 14A DISALLOWANCE AS PER E ARLIER ORDER IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,28,050/-. HOWEVER, AS PER INSTANT ORD ER, IT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS.7,76,363/-. HOWEVER, AS PER APPELLANT, DISALLOWA NCE TOMES TO RS.74,600/-. SO, THERE IS DISPUTE IN BETWEEN THE FIGURES. IN THI S REGARD AO HAS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, SO, HE H AS TAKEN OUT THE SUM OF RS.75,98,432/- AND HAS APPLIED RATIO OF EXACT INCOM E TO TOTAL INCOME. THUS, HE HAS ARRIVED A FIGURE OF RS.7,76,363/-.DURING THE CO URSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT ATTENDED AND SU BMITTED THAT SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF DIVIDEND INCOME FROM ONE COMPANY, NAMELY , TEXMACO LTD. AND THE INVESTMENT IN TEXMACO WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1996 -97. THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM THE SAID COMPANY TROUGH CHEQUES, WHIC H GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE BANK. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING, NOR ANY EXPENDITURE ON LOAN HAS BEEN CLAIMED. FOR BALANCE DIVIDEND INCOME, IT HAS B EEN CONTENDED THAT IT IS NEGLIGIBLE AS COMPARED TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, WHICH IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2.70 CRORES. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER ARGUED THAT AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EARNING THE I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 4 TAX FREE INCOME, RATHER, HE HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE O N THE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION THAT SOME EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED D IRECTLY IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AND MADE DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LAW. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE AO AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE AO. AS PER DIRECTION, FINDING OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD, THE AO IS REQ UIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF REASONABLE AN D ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE AO HAS DONE EXER CISE IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER. HE HAS TAKEN OUT CERTAIN EXPENSES, TREATING THAT THESE PERTAIN TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, BUT, HE HAS NOT PIN POINTED EX PENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE DIRECTLY TO EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. SO, IN MY CONS IDERED OPINION, AFTER PUTTING MY RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELH I ITA T IN THE CASE OF TSL DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA BUILD CO. LTD, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE MATT ER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY AS TO HOW MUCH EXPENSES ARE DI RECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1, 2 AND 3 ARE PARTLY ALLO WED. 3.2. CONSIDERING THE FACTS FOR THE APPEAL IN 2008-0 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND AFTER CONSIDE RING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN THE F OLLOWING MANNER :- 5.2. IN THIS REGARD AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .L,82,10,637/- BY APPLYING RULE 8-D. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT HAS B EEN DISCUSSED BY AO THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED EXPENSES OF RS.94,14,474/- IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. SO, THERE IS DISPUTE AMOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE. SO, THERE IS ADDITION OF RS.28,44,237/-. IN THE REJOINDER OF THE REMAND REPORT, LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF INVESTME NT AND THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT AND CONTENDED THAT MOST OF THE INVESTMEN TS ARE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THAT TOO IN A GROUP COMPANIES. THERE IS H ARDLY ANY TIME WHICH IS DEPUTED BY ANY OF THE EXECUTIVES OF THE COMPANY. SO, APPELLANT HAS DISALLOWED 25% OF REMUNERATION VOLUNTARILY. IT HAS BEEN FURTH ER ARGUED THAT CORE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEPOSITORY SERVICES, FI NANCIAL CONSULTANCY, SHARE BROKING SERVICES AND MAKING INVESTMENT EARNIN G DIVIDEND IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED THAT TOT AL DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,15,88,060/- COMES FROM ONE COMPANY, NAMELY TAXMACO LTD.. THE NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FRO M ANOTHER COMPANY. SO, AS PER APPELLANT'S VIEW FURTHER DISALL OWANCE OF $RS.74,856/- SHOULD BE MADE. IN THE LIGHT OF FINDING OF THE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP, AO IS REQUIRED TO PIN POINT THE EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED HIS WORK ING OF RS.74,856-94. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO AO TO MAKE COMMENT THE WORKING OF THE APPELLANT, BUT, HE HAS DECIDED TO ST ICK ON HIS OWN WORKING MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. S O, AFTER PUTTING MY RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CAS E OF TSL DEFENCE I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 5 TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA BUILD COM. LTD. , THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION THAT AO SHOULD VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AP PELLANT AND ALLOW AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION AS TO HOW MUCH EXPENSES ARE DIR ECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. GROUNDS NO. 1, 2 AND 3 OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 3.3. SIMILARLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL FOR 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CIT(A) TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FOLL OWING MANNER:- 7.1. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD AGAIN THERE IS DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE. AS SESSEE HAS MADE VOLUNTARY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.91,890/- AGAINST WHICH AO HAS MA DE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,00,757/-. THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN FOUND AS NOT REASONABLE BY AO BUT WHILE GIVING HIS FINDING AO HA S NOT GIVEN ANY CONCRETE FINDING AS TO HOW SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY APP ELLANT IS NOT REASONABLE. IN THIS REGARD AO HAS NOT PIN POINTED EXPENSES DIRE CTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. AS PER OBSERVATION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP, AO IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. SO, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, AFTER PUTTING MY RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONB LE DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF TSL DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA BUILD COM LTD., THE MATTER IS BEING REMITTED TO FILE OF AO TO GIVE PROPER FINDING AS TO HOW MUCH EXPENDITURE IS D IRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS RE QUIRED TO GIVEN HIS WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE, GROUND NO. 1, 2, 3 AND 4 A RE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THESE FINDINGS THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE STAND OF THE LD. SR. DR, SH. SAMEER SHARMA WAS THAT THE CIT(A) DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE UPHELD. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ONLY RESTORED THE ISSUE FOR VERIFICATION AND HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN A F INDING ON FACTS AS SUCH THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE POW ERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE ACT. RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITS OWN CASE WHEREIN THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 22.01.201 3 OF ITA NO-4824- I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 6 4826/DEL/2012 FOR 2001-02, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ASSE SSMENT YEARS. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID ORDER ON FACTS CANNOT BE I GNORED BY THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE LEGAL POSITION IS CONCERN ED THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE POWER TO SET ASIDE WHICH EARLIER VEST ED WITH THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2011 W.E.F 01.06.2001. FOR READY-REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 251 (1)(A) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESS MENT, HE MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE MAY EITHER CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. THE POWER TO SET ASIDE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE LEGISLATURE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED LEGAL POSITION, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING AND MERELY RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR VERIFI CATION OF THE FACTS. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON WHICH HEAVY RELIANCE IS BE ING PLACED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY US IN THE EARLIER PART OF THI S ORDER. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT HE HAS MENTIONED TWO DECISIONS IN P ASSING NAMELY CHANDRA BUILDCOM LTD. AND TCL DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES AND ALSO ADDRESSES THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE AO IS REQUIRED TO FULFILL IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP AND THEREAFTER RELYING UPON THE AFORE-MENTIONED TWO DECISIONS HE HAS RESTORED THE I SSUE TO THE AO. EVIDENTLY THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A FI NDING WHICH HAS ADDRESSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION HAS N OT BEEN CULLED OUT NOR HAS A SIMILARITY WITH ASSESSEES CASE BEEN DEMONSTRATED. MERELY PLACING RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WITHOUT THE AFORE-MENTIONED EXERCISE CANN OT BE SAID TO BE A FINDING OF FACT WHICH CAN BE JUDICIALLY UPHELD. THE SET ASIDE IS NOT ON FACTS FOR MERE I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 7 VERIFICATION BUT A DE NOVO SET ASIDE. THE POWER TO SET ASIDE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER DOES NOT VEST WITH THE LD. CIT(A). NO DOUBT ON FAC TS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED ARGUMENTS AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE PAP ER BOOK ON RECORD, HOWEVER IT IS SEEN NO FINDING ON THOSE FACTS HAS BE EN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER FOR THE AFORE-MENTIONED THREE YEARS SHOWS THAT THE SUBM ISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AND THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO DETERMINE THE DISALLOWA NCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN 2008-09 ASSESSM ENT YEAR A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A) AND IN THE SAID YEAR A LSO HE HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY AND DECIDE THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT NO FINDINGS H AS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE W ITH THE STATUTORY MANDATE AS SUCH WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECI DE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING TH E ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. BEFORE PARTING WE MAY RECORD THAT THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY S TATED THAT THE ISSUE MAY NOT BE RESTORED TO THE AO AS COMPLETE FACTS WERE AVAILA BLE BEFORE THE AO AND IF AT ALL THE ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED IT MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CIT(A). THE SAID STAND WAS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LD. SR. DR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HEREI NABOVE GIVEN IN DETAIL, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED AND THE I SSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE I.T.A .NOS.-2834, 2833 & 2835/DEL/20 13 8 OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD OF JANUARY 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (D IVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED:- 03/01/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI