M/s. Vijay Power Generators Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4086/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6229 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2004 - 05 M/S VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD., 5, PARK END, (OPP.) PREET VIHAR, METRO PILLAR NO. 101, VIKAS MARG, NEW DELHI 11- 0902 (PAN: AAACV0191N) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANAT KAPOOR, ADV., MS. ANANYA KAPOOR, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11 DATE OF HEARING : 11 DATE OF HEARING : 11 DATE OF HEARING : 11- -- -02 0202 02- -- -2016 2016 2016 2016 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 30 3030 30- -- -03 0303 03- -- -2016 2016 2016 2016 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 30.3.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE NOTICE ULS 147 I 148 OF THE IT ACT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 148/143(3). ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 2 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE NOTICE ULS 147/148 ISSUED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ALSO BARRED BY TIME LIMITA TION. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE NOTICE ULS 147/ 148 SINCE THIS IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND ALSO NO INCOME HAD ESCAPED AS SESSMENT. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE NOTICE ULS 1 47 I 148 SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEE 147. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION BY THE AO IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DISCLOSE' TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, HENCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JUR ISDICTION. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN THE REQUIRED APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S 148 AS SUCH THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 7. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE , ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE NOTICE U/S 147 1 1 48 SINCE THERE WAS NO FRESH MATERIAL /TANGIBLE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 8. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS 29,65,101/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS OF SALES, STOCK TRAN SFER AND RECONCILIATION OF RS 29,65,101/- BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 3 9. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS 29, 65,101/- SINCE IT IS CLEARLY EXPLAINABLE AND THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO TAX THE SAME. 10.THAT THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN, EVIDENCE PRODUCED, MAT ERIAL PLACED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED A ND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE SAME DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS/ALLOWANCES M ADE. IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIONS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 11. THAT THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A ) AND THE AO ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND BASED ON SURMIS ES AND CONJECTURES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 1.11.,2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,53,850/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) AT AN INCOME OF RS. 4,55,170/- ON 28.12.2 006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147. AFTER RE CORDING THE REASONS TO BELIEVE, AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 2.12.2011 PASSED U /S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES AR OF THE ASSESSEE A TTENDED THE HEARING AND FILED THE REPLY DATED 5.12.2011. THEREAFTER, THE A O ADDED BACK THE INCOME OF RS. 29,65,101/- AND COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 34,20,270/- U/S. 143(3)/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 13.12.2011. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE APPEA LED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 4 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12. 2006 WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 100-102 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND STATED THAT THE ORIG INAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 01-11-2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,53,850/-. THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AT AN INCOME OF RS.4,55,170/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSE PRODUCE ALL BOOKS OF A/C WITH DETAIL REQUIRE BY A.O., WHICH HAVE BEEN DULLY EXAMINE & CHECK AND DISCUSS A S PER PARA-1 OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWA RDS THE PAGE NO. 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A NOTICE U/S 154/155 OF I.T. ACT RECEIVED ON DATED 04- 04-2008 FOR CLARIFICATION OF SALES ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 INCLUDING STOCK TRANSFER SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSSE S ACCOUNT FILED FROM DELHI TO BRANCH PONDICHERRY, WHICH CONTAIN ELEMENT OF STOCK T RANSFER FROM DELHI TO BRANCH PONDICHERRY AND VICE- VERSA. HE FURTHER DRAW O UR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A WRITTEN EXPLANATI ON FILED PERSONALLY BEFORE ITO ,WARD - 17(3) AS WELL AS ONE COPY FILED AT COUN TER ON 30 TH APRIL 2008 EXPLAINING THE DETAIL OF SALE WHICH CONTAIN DETAIL ELE MENT OF TRANSFER OF STOCK AND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEP TED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE FURTHER POINTED THAT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S 148 /147 IS ILLEGAL AND BEYOND ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 5 THE TIME LIMIT OF NOTICE AS PER SECTION 149 OF IT ACT . HE FURTHER STATED THAT AO HAS WRONGLY ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 147 ON ACCOUNT OF INCO ME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT WHEN THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE AND CONCEALMENT OF FACT THAT I.E. SALES AND STOCK TRANSFER IT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AFTER THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED. ALL FACTS WERE DULLY DISCUSSED AND VERIFIED THERE I S NO NEW FACTS OR CONCEALMENT OF ANY FACTS AS PER U/S 147, THERE MUST BE REASON TO BELIEVE THE INCOME HAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE STATED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY ADDED OF RS. 29,65,101/-. HE FURTHER STATED THAT TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS TIME BAR AND ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPEN DUE TO MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AFTER THE ASSESSMENT, THE ADDITION OF RS.29,65,101/- HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE, WHICH WAS DULLY EXPLAINED AND DULY CREDIT IN BOOKS OF ALC AND THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT. HE STATED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT WITHO UT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT REASSESSMENT FRAMED MAY BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW S:- A) ORDER DATED 3.11.20087 IN THE CASE OF M/S HARYA NA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. CIT PASSED IN WP(C) NO. 4074/2007 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 308 ITR 38 B) ORDER DATED 14.8.2014 IN THE CASE OF MADHUK AR KHOSLA VS. ACIT PASSED IN CWP(C), CM NO. 2744/2014 AND 2745/2014 (DELHI HIGH COURT). ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 6 C) ITAT, SMC-2, DELHI BENCH DECISION DATED 17.11.20 15 PASSED IN THE CASE OF SH. RAKESH BANDHU VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2586/DEL/2014 (AY 2009-10). D) CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED 256 ITR 1 (DEL HI) [FB] E) CIT VS. KELVINATOR INDIA 320 ITR 561 (SC) F) CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT 354 ITR 536 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONE D ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S PREVAILING LAW. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER ADOPTING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER THE LAW AND WITH TANGIBLE MATERIAL. THEREFORE, HE STATED THAT THE QUESTION OF QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE P APER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 122 HAVING VARIOUS DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WH ICH IS AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE ARE R EPRODUCING THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 7 SECTION 5 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PROVIDES THA T THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PERSON FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCES DERIVED WHICH IS RECEIVED OR DEEM ED TO BE RECEIVED ON WHICH ACCRUES OR ARISES DURING SUCH PREV IOUS YEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM TAX. IT IS FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALES OF RS. 7,9 9,03,512/- IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, AS PER DETAILS OF DELHI UNIT HAD TRANSFERRED GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,27,48,494/- TO ITS BRANCH UNIT PONDICHERRY BUT IT WAS SHOWN RS. 1,97,83,393/- ONLY BY THE BRANCH UNIT IN ITS PURCHASE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE AN AMOUNT SHOWN RS. 1,97,83,393/- ONLY BY THE BRANCH UNIT IN ITS PURCHASE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 29,65,101/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO ITS INCOME. THI S RESULTED IN UNDERASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 29,65,101/- INVOLVING SHORT LEVY OF TAX OF RS. 10,63,730/-. 8. AS REGARDS ISSUE OF REOPENING IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSE PRODUCED ALL THE B OOKS OF A/C WITH DETAIL REQUIRE BY A.O., WHICH HAVE BEEN DULLY EXAMINED & C HECKED AND DISCUSSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DETAIL CHART OF S ALE WITH STOCK TRANSFER ALONG WITH CONSOLIDATE AUDIT BALANCE SHEET OF COMPANY HEAD OFFICE DELHI AND BRANCH OFFICE / FACTORY PONDICHERRY, WHICH WAS DULLY FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE SALE AND STOCK TRANSFER DECLARE IN T HE DETAIL CHART WERE DULLY ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 8 VERIFIED FROM THE AUDIT BALANCE SHEET OF CONSOLIDATED AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL OF THE COMPANY THAT IS HEAD OFFICE DELHI AND BRANCH OFFICE / FACTORY PONDICHERRY. EVEN DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS DULY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK TRANSFER TO BRANCH AND VICE-VERSA AND CREDITE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF STOCK TRANSFER TO BRANCH IN TH E BOOKS OF BRANCH OFFICE WHICH HAS SHOWN CREDITED THEIR STOCK LESS BY RS. 29, 65,101/-. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL VERSION THAT BECAUSE THIS UNIT IS COVERED UNDER EXCISE ACT THEREFORE TO CLAIM MODVAT AS PER EXCISE LAW IN THE STOCK TRANSFER. IT SEGREGATED EXCISE DUTY AND CST IN SEPARATE HEAD IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ALSO FIND THAT A NOTICE DATED 4.4.2008 U/S 154/155 OF I.T. A CT WAS RECEIVED FOR CLARIFICATION OF SALES ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 INCLUD ING STOCK TRANSFER SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSSES ACCOUNT FILED FR OM DELHI TO BRANCH PONDICHERRY, WHICH CONTAIN ELEMENT OF STOCK TRANSFER F ROM DELHI TO BRANCH PONDICHERRY AND VICE- VERSA AND IN RESPONSE THERETO TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REPLY OF THE NOTICE ON 30.4.2008 EXPLAINING THE DETAI L OF SALE WHICH CONTAIN DETAIL ELEMENT OF TRANSFER OF STOCK AND CREDITED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND NO FURTHER QUER Y WAS ASKED BY THE AO AND SENT THE NOTICE U/S. 147 ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME E SCAPING ASSESSMENT WHEN THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE AND CONCEALMENT OF FA CT I.E. SALES AND STOCK TRANSFER IT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED. WE FIND THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE DULY DISCUSSED AND VERI FIED, HENCE, THERE IS NO NEW FACTS OR CONCEALMENT OF ANY FACTS AS PER SECTION 147. THE AO HAS WRONGLY ADDED OF RS. 29,65,101/- IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSED INCOME, IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FRAME U/S 148/147 WHEN IT CONTAIN ONLY EXCI SE DUTY AND CST CHARGE ON STOCK TRANSFER FROM HEAD OFFICE TO BRANCH OFFICE . THE EXCISE DUTY AND CST IS GOVT. REVENUE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCOUNTING IN RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AS PER EXCISE ACT TO CLAIM MODVAT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS IS A CHANGE OF OPINION ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 9 CASE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 28.12.2006, AFTER MAKING DETAILED ENQUIRY AND THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE FU LL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE AL SO OF THE VIEW THAT REOPENING HAD BEEN DONE MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION IN A S MUCH AS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. AC T. WE ALSO FIND THAT AO HAS NO FRESH MATERIAL TO FORM HIS OPINION REGARDING ESCA PEMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND HE HAS ALSO NOT FOUND ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLE D LAW THAT MERELY CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (DELHI) [FULL BENCH] AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED IN APPEAL NOS. 2009-2011 OF 2003 REPORTED IN 320 ITR 561. 8.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AS AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE WRONG IN DECIDING THE REOPENING AS VALID. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSS IONS AND THE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, AS AFORESAID IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE P RESENT CASE THE ISSUE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INCORRECT AND INVALID. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4086/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 10 8.2 SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AS AFORESAID, RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S TAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/03/2016. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [L.P. SAHU] L.P. SAHU] L.P. SAHU] L.P. SAHU] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 30/03/2016 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