DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Mittal Timber Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3357/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5664 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 142(1); 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3357 /DEL/201 7 A.Y. : 20 1 2 - 1 3 DCIT, CIRCLE 16(2), NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 308, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S MITTAL TIMBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 14/455, GROUND FLOOR, SUNDER VIHAR, NEW DELHI 11 0 087 (PAN: AACCM2537P) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAVEEN GUPTA, ADV. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-39, NEW DELHI DATED 30.1.2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 55}1,01 U/S)7(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WITHOUT CONSIDERING AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS OPERATION DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLOSED? 2 2. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 557 U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT BY SOLELY RELYING ON SELF-SERVING AND NEW CLAIM OF -THE ASSESSEE THAT BUSINESS WAS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED AND WITHOUT RECORDING VERIFIABLE FINDINGS THAT THE BUSINESS OF E ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCONTINUED BUT WAS ACTUALLY TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED? 3. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 55,71,019/0 BY ACCEPTING SELF- SERVING NEW CLAIMS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULFILLED CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 (THE RULE) AND WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO? 4. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS, 15,50,5101 UNDER THE HEAD OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' ON ACCOUNT OF ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT WITH, THE BANK RELATED TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY IGNORING THE 3 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(1) OF THE ACT AND EVEN WHEN NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR? 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 40,20,508/- ON 28.9.20 12. LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THRO UGH CASS AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 7.8.2013. DUE TO CHANGE OF INCUMBENT A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE ALONGW ITH NOTICES U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WERE ISSUED ON 15.7 .2014 WHICH WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND FRESH NOTICES U/S. 142 (1) AND 143(2) WERE ISSUED ON 15.10.2014. DUE TO CHANGE OF JURISDICTIO N, AGAIN FRESH NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 17.11.201 4 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILE D THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF IMPORT OF TIMBER, SAWING AND TRADING BUT DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. ON PERU SAL OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 55,71,019/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. THE A SSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 30.12.2014 WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW C AUSE AS TO WHY THE 4 EXPENSES CLAIMED BE NOT DISALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF AN Y BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE ITS LE TTER DATED 30.12.2014 THAT THE COMPANY WAS FORCED TO STOP ITS OPERATIONS DUE TO TAKING OVER OF ITS ASSETS BY THE BANK. HOWEVER, AS THE COMPANY WA S CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RECOVERY OF ITS DUES FR OM DEBTORS AND PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO THE CREDITORS, THEREFORE, THE COMPANY HAD TO RUN ITS OPERATIONS. THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED EXPENSES TO FI LE LEGAL CASES AGAINST BANK AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES OF ROUTINE NATURE AND H AS TO BE ALLOWED AS BEING INCURRED IN THE ROUTINE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION THAT WHEN THE RE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, HOW THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED I N RELATION TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITE D RS. 23,28,527/- AS LOSS DUE TO THE DEFECTED MATERIAL. WHEN NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN DONE, HOW THIS LOSS HAS OCCURRED. FURTHER IN ABSENCE OF AN Y BUSINESS ACTIVITY, WHY THE EXPENSES ON TOUR AND TRAVELLING HAS BEEN INCURR ED AND WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON WHY THE FINANCE COST OF RS. 5,79,999/- HAS BEEN INCURRED IN ABSENCE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR OTHER EXPENSES AL SO AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,71,019/- WERE NOT ALLOWED. 5 AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSES SEE HAS DECLARED RS. 15,50,510/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER OPERATING REVENUE . THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT AS THE COMPANY COULD NOT REPAY LOANS TA KEN FROM BANKS, ONE TIME SETTLEMENT WAS MADE WITH THE BANK AND THE WAIV ED OFF AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS OTHER OPERATING REVENUE. THE SAME IS NOT F ROM BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND AS SUCH THIS AMOUNT IS TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES AND TAXED AS SUCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 16,71,660/- VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 PASS ED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-39, NEW DELHI, WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE O RDER PASSED BY THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE CONTENTI ONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE THE LD. C IT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUT E ELABORATELY AT PAGE NO. 12 TO 14 VIDE PARA NO. 5 TO 5.5. FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, I AM REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR ALONG WITH THE CASE LAWS RELIED .UPON BY HIM AND THE EXTANT LAW. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO BUSINESS PER SE WAS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ALL THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. FURTHER, FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT PARA 3 ABOVE, THE GROUNDS FROM (A) TO (T) ARE CONSIDER TOGETHER AS THESE ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS'. ALSO, VIDE THE GROUNDS AT (U) & (V) THE APPELLANT OBJECTED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM OTHER OPERATING REVENUE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 244A OF THE ACT (INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND). FINALLY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE GROUND AT (W) IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC SUBMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL. HENCE, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ORDER. 7 5.1 COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FROM (A) TO (T) ABOVE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER; IT IS MENTIONED 'THEREIN, INTER ALIA, ' ... THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET' ENTRY DATED 30/12/2014 WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BE NOT DISALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 30/1212014 THAT THE COMPANY WAS FORCED TO STOP ITS OPERATIONS DUE TO TAKING OVER OF ITS ASSETS BY THE BANK. HOWEVER, AS THE COMPANY WAS CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH. AS RECOVERY OF ITS DUES FROM THE DEBTORS AND PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO CREDITORS, THEREFORE, THE COMPANY HAD TO RUN ITS OPERATIONS. THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED EXPENSES TO FILE LEGAL CASES AGAINST BANK AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES OF ROUTINE AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BEING INCURRED IN THE ROUTINE COURSE OF BUSINESS. 2.2 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, HOW THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.23,28,527 AS LOSS DUE TO DEFECTED MATERIAL. WHEN NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN DONE, HOW THIS LOSS HAS OCCURRED. FURTHER IN ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY, 8 WHY THE EXPENSES ON TOUR & TRAVELLING HAS BEEN INCURRED AND WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON WHY THE FINANCE COST OF RS. 5,79,999/- HAS BEEN INCURRED IN ABSENCE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR OTHER EXPENSES ALSO AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 2.3 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE BUSINESS, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT AMOUNTING TO RS.55,71,019/- ARE NOT ALLOWED. 3 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST OF RS.121,152/- ON REFUND BUT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT NO SUCH INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN. AS SUCH, THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ... ' 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ARGUED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE LINES OF THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN LAXMI NARYANA RAM GOPAL VS GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD (1954) 25 ITR 9 449 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD, INTER ALIA, 'THE ACTIVITIES WHICH CONSTITUTE CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS NEED NOT NECESSARILY CONSIST OF ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURE OR ACTIVITIES IN THE EXERCISE OF A PROFESSION OR VOCATION. THEY MAY EVEN CONSIST OF RENDERING SERVICES TO OTHERS OF A VARIEGATED CHARACTER. THE WORD 'BUSINESS' IS ONE OF THE LARGE AND INDEFINITE IMPORTS AND CONNOTES SOMETHING WHICH OCCUPIES THE TIME, ATTENTION AND LABOUR OF A PERSON NORMALLY WITH THE OBJECT OF MAKING PROFIT'. 5.3 FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE RELEVANT PY TOOK CENTRE STAGE AND HENCE ALL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 37 (1) WERE DISALLOWED. THERE IS NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OR APPLICABILITY OF THE EXPENSES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, ON THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE -APPELLANT'S CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO CARRYING OFF OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IS BORNE OUT FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. SUSPENSION OF CARRYING, ON DOES NOT 10 NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCONTINUANCE OF THE BUSINESS - A COMPANY MAY NOT OBTAIN OR BE ABLE TO EXECUTE, A SINGLE BUSINESS CONTRACT FOR MONTHS AND YET IT MAY BE DEEMED TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS, IF DURING THE PERIOD OF LULL AND INACTIVITY IT IS KEPT ALIVE AND IF IT RETAINS ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HOLDS MEETINGS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A BUSINESS TO BE IN EXISTENCE SHOULD HAVE WORK ALL THE TIME. THERE MAY BE LONG INTERVALS OF INACTIVITY AND A CONCERN MAY STILL BE A GOING CONCERN, THOUGH IT MAY, FOR SOME TIME, BE QUIET AND DORMANT. THE MERE FACT THAT A BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A CONTRACT AND THE BUSINESS HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN IN THAT SENSE DORMANT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT IT HAS CEASED TO EXIT, IF THE, ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN AN ESTABLISHMENT AND INCUR EXPENSES IN THE EXPECTATION THAT WORK WOULD COME AND THE BUSINESS WOULD BE, SUCCESSFUL [REF. BHARAT'S DIRECT TAXES LAW & PRACTICE 8 TH EDITION 2016 PAGE 202). A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY ITAT KOLKATA IN AKARSH PRINTERS LTD. KOLKATA VS. DEPARTMENT OF 11 INCOME TAX I.TA NO. 2279/(KOL)/2007 DATED19/03/2010, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD, INTER ALIA, SIMPLY ON THE REASON THAT THERE WAS TEMPORARY CESSATION OF BUSINESS, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. ALSO, THE CONCEPT OF TEMPORARY LULL IN BUSINESS WAS CONSIDERED AND AGREED TO IN CIT VS INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ITA NO. 530/2011(DEL) DATED 16/12/2011. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHICH DISMISSED THE REVENUE'S SLP. 5.4 I AM THEREFORE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE COURT JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AO ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT APPLY SQUARELY IN THE PRESENT CASE. RATHER, THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE - ARE IN SYNC WITH THE EXTANT LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE 12 OF EXPENSES (RS.55,71,019/-) MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS DELETED. 5.5 AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT (U) OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH IS RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DISCOUNT AVAILABLE ON RESTRUCTURING OF THE BANK LOANS UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', IT IS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, INTER ALIA,... DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED RS.15,50,510/- AS INCOME FROM 'OTHER OPERATING REVENUE'. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT AS THE COMPANY COULD NOT REPAY LOANS TAKEN FROM BANKS, ONE TIME SETTLEMENT WAS MADE WITH THE BANK AND THE WAIVED OFF AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS OTHER OPERATING REVENUE. THE SAME IS NOT FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND AS SUCH THIS AMOUNT IS TAKEN AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND TAXES AS SUCH ... ' FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACT, IT CAN BE SAFELY INFERRED THAT THE REASON FOR TAXING THIS RECEIPT / DISCOUNT ON LOAN RESTRUCTURING UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IS THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, I HAVE HELD IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PARA THAT WHILE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY 13 DURING THE RELEVANT AY, YET THE BUSINESS WAS NOT DISCONTINUED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH EVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS POINT IS DELETED. 8. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING, I AM OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDE R WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE SA ME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20/06/2018. S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 20/06/2018 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES