ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi

ITA 4074/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1771 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C GARG; SUSHEEL KUMAR GUPTA CAS
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMITA B BISWAS CITA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Royalty expenses; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5591/DEL/2016 ( A .Y 2011-12) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFEREN CING) OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 301, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, BABAR ROAD, NEW DELHI AAAJ00032A (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-52(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 4074/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2011-12) ACIT CIRCLE-52(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 301, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, BABAR ROAD, NEW DELHI AAAJ00032A (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. D. C. GARG & SH. SUSHEEL KUMAR GUPTA, CAS RESPONDENT BY SH. PRAMITA. B. BISWAS, CIT(A) DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-18, NE W DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. DATE OF HEARING 13.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0912.2020 2 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 5591/DEL/2016 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) (1) THAT LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS 549,21,38,834/- AGAIN ST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 477,61,36,190/- (2) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.15,88,00,000/- INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT BOARD O N THE SCHEMES AND PROJECTS ARE OUTSIDE ITS AIMS AND OBJECTIVES AND AL SO CAPITAL IN NATURE. (3) ) THAT LD CIT (A) HAS NO MERITS IN FINDING THAT EXP ENDITURE OF RS 15,88,00,000/- ON SCHEMES AND PROJECTS IS OF CAPITA L NATURE AS NEITHER APPELLANT BOARD HAS CREATED ANY ASSET NOR ANY ENDUR ING BENEFIT OR WEALTH ACCRETION HAS BEEN DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT BOARD R ATHER SUCH GRANTS , SOPS, BOUNTIES ARE FOREGONE FOREVER THUS PERMANENT OUTFLO W ONCE EXPENDED BY THE APPELLANT BOARD. (4) THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS 15,88,00,000/- U/S 36(1) (XII) , REQUEST IS HEREBY PLACED THROUGH THIS APPEAL TO SUBMIT FURTHER DOCUMENTS U/R 46A TO SUPPORT JUSTIFICATION OF DEBIT OF EXPENSES BEING MADE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS RESPECTING APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. (5) THAT THE LD C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS 61,684/- WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NO. 4074/DEL/2016 (REVENUES APPEAL) (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,79,41,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF 14A OF THE ACT. (II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ESTABLISHMENT AND A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN HIS P&L A/C., WHICH HAS INDIRECT NEXUS WITH THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS & SHARES. 3 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 (III) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 14,95,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT TO ASS AM GOVT, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS WITH REGA RD TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE. (IV) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 38,97,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY, WHICH DO NOT CONST ITUTE EXPENDITURE AND HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 121 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESE NT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO.5591/DEL/2016. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT THEREBY EXPLAINING T HE REASON FOR DELAY. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REASON EXPLAINED FOR DELAY IS GENUINE. HENCE, DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONDONED. 4. FIRSTLY WE ARE TAKING UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED BY AN ACT OF PARLIAMEN T, IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OIL IND USTRY. THE RETURN SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 477,36,190/- WAS FILED ON 29.09.2011 BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE EXPENDI TURE ON DIRECT OPERATIONS AS APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS AND HELD THAT THE SAME CAN NOT BE HELD AS LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A FOR DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENDITURE IN EARNING THE EXEMPTED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER TREA TED THE PROVISION FOR ROYALTY PAYABLE TO STATE OF ASSAM AS A CONTINGENT L IABILITY AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS TO ASSESSE ES APPEAL THE ISSUE IS RELATED TO EXPENDITURE OF RS. 15,88,00,000/- INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE BOARD ON THE SCHEMES AND PROJECTS AND THE SAME IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BOARD HAS NOT CREATED A NY ASSETS OR ANY ENDURING BENEFIT OR WEALTH ACCRETION WAS DERIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE BOARD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENDITURE ARE COVERED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(XII) OF THE ACT AND SIMILAR RELIEFS HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN A.YS. 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AS WELL AND THE RE VENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE SAME. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS SUBMITTING THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A TO SUPPORT JUST IFICATION OF DEBIT OF EXPENSES BEING MADE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINES S RESPECTING APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 BEING ITA NOS. 3568 & 4221/DEL/2014 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 WHEREIN THE TR IBUNAL REMANDED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS I T CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THIS JUNCTURE HAS FILED CERTAIN DOCUMEN TS UNDER RULE 46A TO SUPPORT JUSTIFICATION OF DEBIT OF EXPENSES BEING MA DE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS RESPECTING APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS . IN SIMILAR SITUATION, THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 HELD AS UNDER: 13. AO DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,94,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BOARD HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT I T FULFILLED ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1)(XII). CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ARE IN THE N ATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF 5 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 THE ASSESSEE BOARD. 14. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ADDRESSED SHOT ARGU MENT THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED NO ASSETS NOR ANY ENDURING BEN EFIT ACCRUED TO IT RATHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ARE IN THE FORM OF GRANTS, SOPS, BOUNTIES, THE SAME ARE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE BOARD HA S PLACED ON RECORD DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A TO PROVE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPENSES MADE IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE THE JUSTIFICATION OF DEBIT O F EXPENSES DISALLOWED BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY CIT(A), THE AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY. SO, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE ALSO TO AO TO DECIDE AFTER ENTERTAINING THE DOCUMEN TS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BOARD UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AFTER PR OVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS NO. 7 & 8 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO T HAT OF A.YS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11, HENCE WE ALSO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE DOC UMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BOARD UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RUL ES, 1962. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING B Y FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 5 RELATING TO ADD ITION OF RS. 61,644 TOWARDS NON CREDIT OF TDS, THE SAME IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ARE FILED TOWAR DS THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS AND IF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED I S JUSTIFIED THEN THE TDS CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THUS, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 5591/DEL /2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 9. AS REGARDS TO REVENUES APPEAL GROUND NOS. 1 AN D 2 RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, THE LD. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,79,41 ,000/- . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO IN COME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME SHALL BE WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE TO SUB-RULE (2). RULE 8D(2)(III) GIVES A METHOD AS TO HOW THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES IS TO B E WORKED OUT AFTER AVERAGING OUT THE TOTAL OF INVESTMENT AS ON THE FIR ST AND LAST DAY OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PIN POINT THE EXPENDITURE IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE CLAI MS THAT NO EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IT DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE BOARD HAS MADE EQUITY I NVESTMENT IN THE SHARES/SECURITIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 35,882 LACS AND RS. 35,882 LACS ON 1 ST AND LAST DAY OF THE YEAR, THEREBY GIVING A NEW VERSION TO THE BROUGHT FORWARD INVESTMENT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR THUS, THERE IS NO REASON OF ANY EXPENSE, EFFORTS OR CORRELATIVE NEXUS DURING THE SAID ASSESS MENT YEAR FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME AND MOREOVER NO DIVIDEND HAS BEEN CREDITED I N THE INCOME STATEMENT OF THE YEAR. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE BOARD HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAVE NO APPLICATION. THE LD. AR RELI ED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: I) CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (DELHI HC) II) CIT V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD . [ 2010] 326 ITR 1 III) MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD. V. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL 7 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLIC ABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, AN ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INCOME PERTAINS TO INCOME ON DIVIDEND, WHICH BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE TREATED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE TO ATTRACT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTM ENTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. REITERATE D THE SAME. THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITION AS THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN THIS PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 12. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,95,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT TO ASSAM GOVT. IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE MIX ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. THE LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT CATEGORICALLY PROHIBITS THE ALLOWABI LITY OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE EXPENSES AND THE LIABI LITY THEREOF IS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. 13. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NBCC LTD CASE AND J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SHRI RAM PISTONS CASE AS STATED ABOVE, ALONG WITH ALL THE CASES CITED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER I.E. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD. [312 ITR 254(SC)], REALEST BUILDERS & SERVICES LTD. [170 TAXMANN 218 (SC)] AND SAS HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.(APPEAL NO. 1030 OF 2010) (MADRAS HIGH COURT). HENCE THE CIT(A) CORRECTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,95,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGOR ICAL FINDING THAT ROYALTY 8 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 PAYMENT IS AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AND THE SAME WAS N OT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. ONCE THE ROYALTY EXPENSES OF RS. 14.95 CRO RES HAVE BEEN CRYSTALLIZED IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME IS NOT QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 38,97,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY, WHICH DO NOT CONST ITUTE EXPENDITURE AND NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37 (1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYABLE TO GOVER NMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & GUJARAT HAS BEEN DEBITED ON ESTIMATED BA SIS AS ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN BASIS AS TO HOW THE EXPENDITURE ON ROYALTY HAS BEEN CRYSTALLIZED. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. 16. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGOR ICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE BOARD IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO THE RESPECTIVE STATE GOVERNMENTS WHEREIN OIL WELLS ARE LOCATED. TH E AMOUNT PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY IS DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO THE RATE, QUANTITY OF CRUDE OIL EXTRACTED ETC. THE ASSESSEE B OARD DOES NOT HAVE ANY DOMAIN OR CONTROL ON THIS ISSUED. IT IS THE MINISTR Y OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GASES WHICH ADVISES THE BOARD ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO THE RESPECTIVE STATE GOVERNMENTS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE LETTERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BOARD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDIT ION. THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO . 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9 ITA NOS. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016 18. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 5591/DEL/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE BEING ITA NO. 4074/DEL/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09TH DA Y OF DECEMBER, 2020 . SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 09/12/2020 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. 5591 & 4074/DEL/2016