DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Replika Press Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3921/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0967 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V RAJA KUMAR ADVS
• Assessee Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 10B; 143(1); 147

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3487/DEL/2011 ( A.Y 2008-09) REPLIKA PRESS PVT. LTD. B-214, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI AAACR1084L (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-15(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3921/DEL/2011 ( A.Y 2008-09) DCIT CIRCLE-15(1) C. R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS REPLIKA PRESS PVT. LTD. B-214, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI AAACR1084L (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K. SAMPATH & SH. V. RAJA KUMAR, ADVS RESPONDENT BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4/5/2011 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW D ELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. DATE OF HEARING 12.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.03.2019 2 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 3487/DEL/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW ON THE FOLLOWING:- 1. IN BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 23,45,668/- PERT AINING TO DUTY DRAW BACK AND OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWING REBATE U/S 10B OF THE AC T THEREON. 2. IN NOT REDUCING THE SALE SCRAP IN A SUM OF RS. 5 3,34,092/- FROM THE COST OF SALE AND SETTING IT OFF MERELY FROM THE TURNOVER. ITA NO. 3921/DEL/2011 (REVENUES APPEAL) 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO COM PUTE DEDUCTION U/S 10B BY INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT OF RS. 4,36,65,8 96/- TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO GOODS WERE SENT (EXPORTED) OUT OF THE COUNTRY BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION U/S 10B WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTIV E EXPORTS. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A MANUFACTURER AND EXPOR TER OF BOOKS. RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,37,30,410/-WAS FILE D ON 29/09/2008. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10B AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,48,99,250/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY IN CASS. STATUTORY NOTICE WE RE ISSUED AND DULY COMPLIED WITH. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES CA/AR OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED DETAILS IN SUP PORT OF RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN RESPONSE TO QUERIES THAT WER E RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTIO N U/S 10B AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,48,99,250/- ON A TOTAL EXPORT TURNOVER OF RS. 35,65,42,912/-. DOMESTIC TURNOVER WAS SHOWN AT RS. 7,25,95,328/-. HOWEVER, F ROM THE DETAILS FILED, THE 3 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT EXPORTS INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,36,65,896/- BEING CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT (DTA SUPPL Y). FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE FILED: SUMMARY OF SALES IS AS FOLLOWS:- AMOUNT (RS.) A) PHYSICAL EXPORT 312480000 ] AS PER CHART C ENC LOSED B) CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT 43665896 ] AS PER CHART C ENCLOSED C) EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION -3044122 D) TYPE SETTING & SCANNING 3441138 ] STP FORMS & PAYMENT ADVICE RECEIVED ARE ENCLOSED ANNEXURE D (A) EXPORT SALES 356542912 E) DOMESTIC SALE 67261236 F) SCRAP SALE (WASTAGE) 5334092 (B) DOMESTIC SALE 72595328 (A+B) TOTAL TURNOVER 429138240 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE FOLLOWING SALES:- EXPORT SALE A) PHYSICAL EXPORT RS. 312480000 ] AS PER CHART C ENCLOSED B) CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT RS. 43665896 ] AS PER CHART C ENCLOSED C) EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION RS. (3044122) D) TYPE SETTING & SCANNING RS. 3441138 ] STP FORM S & PAYMENT ADVICE RECEIVED ARE ENCLOSED THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 10B ON ACCOUNT OF DUTY DRAW BACK CLAIM AND NOT INCLUDING I NCOME FROM TYPESETTING AND SCAN AND EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION AS WELL AS N OT REDUCING THE SALE OF SCRAP IN SUM OF RS.53,34,092/- FROM THE COST OF SAL E AND SETTING IT OFF FROM THE TURNOVER. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED AS REGARDS ASSESSEES APPEA L THAT GROUND NO. 1 HAS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) F OR CONSIDERING DUTY DRAWBACK U/S 10B IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS 342 ITR 49. THE LD. DR DOES NOT OBJECT FOR THE SAME. 6. WE, THEREFORE, REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORT (SUPRA). GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SADHU FORGING LTD. 336 ITR 444 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF SALE OF SCRAP BEING PART AND PARCEL OF THE ACTIVITY AND BEING PROXIMATE THERETO WOULD ALSO BE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF GAINS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ARE NOT CORRECT IN NO T REDUCING THE SALE OF SCRAP IN SUM OF RS.53,34,092/- FROM THE COST OF SALE AND SET TING IT OFF FROM THE TURNOVER. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE CONTESTED HEREIN IS VERY MUCH IDE NTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SADHU FO RGING LTD. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN GIVING HEAT TREATMENT FOR WHICH IT HAD EARNED LABOUR CHARGES AND JOB-WORK CHA RGES, IT CAN THUS BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DONE A PROCESS ON THE RAW MA TERIAL WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A PART AND PARCEL OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THESE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN DEPENDENT INCOME OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS COULD 5 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. THESE WERE GAINS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKIN GS AND SO ENTITLED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB . THERE CANNOT BE ANY TWO OPINIONS THAT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE TYP E OF MATERIAL BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO GENERATE SCRA P IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING. THE RECEIPTS OF SALE OF SCRAP BEING PART AND PARCEL OF THE ACTIVITY AND BEING PROXIMATE THERETO WOULD ALSO BE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF GAINS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTING UNDER SECTION 80-IB. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SADHU FORGING LTD. (SUPRA), THE GROUND OF A PPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS REVENUES APPEAL, THE DR SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS SALE IN INDIA AND INDIAN AGENTS WERE PRESENT, WHICH IS A PERMANEN T ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA AND PARTIES ARE INDIAN ENTITIES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REMAND REPORT CALLED BY THE CIT(A) FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO COMP UTE DEDUCTION U/S 10B BY INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT OF RS. 4,36,65,8 96/- TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT NO GOODS WERE SENT (EXPORTED) OUT OF THE COUNTRY BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREFORE EXEMPTION U/S 10B WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CON STRUCTIVE EXPORTS. 10. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS FOR THE CO NSTRUCTIVE EXPORT WERE RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN PUBLISHERS. BOOKS WERE DELIVE RED AS PER DIRECTION OF THE FOREIGN PARTIES AFTER APPROVAL AND CLEARANCE OF CUS TOM (NEPZ), RBI ETC. THE PAYMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT WERE ALSO RECE IVED FROM FOREIGN PUBLISHERS IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THESE ARE IDENTICAL FEATURES BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT AND PHYSICAL E XPORT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE 6 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 BETWEEN THESE TWO EXPORT WAS THAT THE DELIVERY OF G OODS WAS MADE TO THE AGENTS (IMPORTERS) OF FOREIGN BUYERS IN INDIA. IT I S AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE GOODS UNDER THE CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT DID NOT CROSS B OUNDARIES OF INDIA AS THEY WERE DELIVERED TO THE AGENTS(IMPORTERS) OF THE FORE IGN BUYERS IN INDIA. THESE AGENTS (IMPORTERS) OF THE FOREIGN BUYERS WERE THE I MPORTER OF THE SAME GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEES FOREIGN BUYERS. THE LD. AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FORMALITIES OF EXPORT OF THE ASSESSEES GOODS TO TH E FOREIGN BUYERS AND THE IMPORT OF THE SAME GOODS BY THE INDIAN BUYERS FROM THE FOREIGN PARTIES HAD BEEN DULY OBSERVED AND DUE PERMISSIONS AND APPROVAL S HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE RBI, CUSTOM AUTHORITIES, ETC. FOR THE DELI VERY OF THE GOODS IN LOCAL MARKET, PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISS IONER OF NEPZ WAS OBTAINED IN EACH CASE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PERMISSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF NEPZ, THE PERSONS TO WHOM DELIVERY OF THE GOODS WAS MADE AS PER THE INSTRUCTI ONS OF THE FOREIGN BUYERS, REMITTED THE PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO THE OVE RSEAS PUBLISHERS WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE RBI (TO RELEASE FOREIGN EXCHA NGE). THUS, ALL THE FORMALITIES OF EXPORT AND IMPORT HAD BEEN DULY OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND APPROVALS AND PERMISSIONS GRANTED BY THE RBI, CUSTOMS, (NEPZ) ETC. TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCISE DUTY HAS B EEN PAID AND ITS A DOMESTIC TRANSACTION. THUS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS TO C ONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT AS IS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2007-08. TH E LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF J B BORA 197 ITR 271. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THIS I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 7.4 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MATER, I FIND TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT HA S BEEN ALLOWED BY THE 7 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 DEPARTMENT IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS, I.E. A.Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2007-08. FURTHER, AS PER THE FACTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT, IT IS FOUND THAT IN THIS KIND OF EXPORT, THE APPELLANT SU PPLIES THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL TO LOCAL SHOPKEEPERS WHO ARE IMPORTERS OF BOOKS, FROM THE FOREIGN PUBLISHERS AS PER INSTRUCTION OF THE FOREIGN CLIENT S (PUBLISHERS) OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT COUNTER SA LE BY THE APPELLANT. THE SALE IS IN EFFECT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE FORE IGN BUYER AND ONLY THE DELIVERY IS MADE TO THE INDIAN IMPORTER INSTEAD OF SENDING THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL ABROAD AND AGAIN BRINGING IT BACK, TO AVOI D TWO-WAY MOVEMENTS OF GOODS. THE EXPORT PROCEEDS ARE RECEIVED BY THE APPE LLANT IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIRECTLY FROM THE OVERSEAS BUYERS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR WITH REGARD TO SUCH EXPO RT BEING PART OF THE EXIM POLICY AND ALSO BEING AUTHORIZED BY NPEZ AND THE TO TALING OF FACTS AND CASE LAWS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY. I FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD CANN OT BE SUSTAINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO COMPUT E DEDUCTION U/S 10B IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT COUNTER SALE BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL TO LOCAL SHOPKEEPERS WHO ARE IMPORTERS OF BOOKS, FROM THE FO REIGN PUBLISHERS AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE FOREIGN CLIENTS (PUBLISHERS) OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOREIGN BUYER AND ONLY THE DELIVERY IS MADE TO THE INDIAN IMPORTER INSTEAD OF SENDING THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL ABOARD AND AGAIN BRINGING IT BACK TO AVOID TWO WAY MOVEMEN TS OF GOODS. THIS CLAIM WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IN A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2007-08, THEREFORE, RULE OF CONSISTENCY ALSO HAS TO BE APPLIED. BESIDES THIS , THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WP (C) NO. 13838 OF 2009 ORDER DATED 22.01.2013 HELD AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND WE MAY STRAIGHTAWAY STATE THAT HIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF CHAN GE OF OPINION AS ALSO A CASE 8 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 WHICH WAS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE AU DIT WHICH HAD POINTED TO THE SO-CALLED DISCREPANCIES ON PAINTS OF LAW, PARTI CULARLY, ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10B OF THE SAID ACT. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE CHANGE OF OPINION IS CONCERNED , IT IS WRIT LARGE FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY RAISED A QUERY WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPLIES MADE IN THE DOMESTIC TA RIFF AREA AND THE PETITIONER/ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DETAILED REPLY TO T HE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE, FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT A BOVE, HE MADE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO EXPORTS IN THE DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA A ND/OR CONSTRUCTIVE EXPORTS. WHILE COMPUTING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 10B, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCLUDED THE SUPPLY MADE IN THE DOMESTI C TARIFF AREA, BOTH IN THE MAIN BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO IN ANNEXU RE-A THERETO, WHICH WAS THE CALCULATION OF THE DEDUCTIONS. THEREFORE, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE VERY ISSUE WHICH IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT. THA T WOULD MEAN THAT THE PRESENT VENTURE OF INVOKING SECTION 147 IS NOTHING BUT A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW, AS IS WELL SETTLED BY A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS. THE SECOND POINT OF THE PETITIONER IS AL SO WELL TAKEN THAT AN AUDIT PARTY COULD NOT HAVE COMMENTED ON A POINT OF LAW AN D, PARTICULARLY, ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10B OF THE SAID ACT. 12. THEREFORE, ON BOTH POINTS, THE PETITIONER IS LI ABLE TO SUCCEED. THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 24.02.2009 AND ALL PROCEEDING S PURSUANT THERETO, INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2009, ARE QUASHED A ND/OR SET ASIDE. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. SINCE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A PROPER REASONING AND THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE ARE DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 9 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 12. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH M ARCH, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26/03/2019 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NOS. 3487 & 3921/DEL/2011 DATE OF DICTATION 12.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 2 6 . 0 3 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 2 6 . 0 3 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 6 . 0 3 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER