M/s. Lancer Food Products, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4133/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4585 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU
• Assessee Lawyers: S R WADHWA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 273B; 80HHC; 12A; 139(5); 27; 144; 11; 139

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4133/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) M/S. LANCER FOOD PRODUCTS, A - 19, BATHLA APARTMENT, 43, IP EXTENSION, DELHI PAN:AAAFL9089N VS. ITO, WARD - 59(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SR WADHWA, ADV REVENUE BY: SHRI SHRAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 29/08 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 / 09 / 2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 19, NEW DELHI DATED 26/04/2016 WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT AS THE FORM NO. 10 CCB FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CBDT TILL THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE SOLITARY ISSUE THAT AUDIT REPORT FILED IN FORM NO. 10 CCB DATED 25/09/2012, WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT AS IT WAS MADE EX PARTE UNDER SECTION 14 FOR OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT ALLOWING A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS DELAYED BY 18 DAYS AND EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC WAS NOT GRANTED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHO FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/10/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 80550 / - AND WHEREIN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS. 5024393 / - WAS CLAIMED. AS THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF RS. 5024393 / - WAS DENIED AS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AN D/OR THE REPORT OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO. 10 PAGE 2 OF 6 CCB. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS PASSED ON 30/03/2015 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10518530/ - . 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) , WHO WIDE ORDER DATED 26/04/2016 HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS FOR FURNISHING FORM NO. 10 CCB AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, EVEN ON THIS GROUN D APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED ACCORDING TO HIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY HIM THAT THE PETITION OF THE APPELLANT FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE CBDT TILL HIS DECISION AND THEREFORE ACCORDIN G TO HIM IN FUTURE IF THE SAME IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS OF HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONTENDED THAT NOW CBDT HAS ALREADY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119 (2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2017. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM NOW THE RETURN OF INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . HE SUBMITTED THAT FORM NO. 10 CCB COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND FURTHER SINCE THE APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY A CONTINUANCE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF THE AUDIT REPORT I S SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10 CCB WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO D EDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME LATE BY 18 DAYS AND FORM NO. 10 CCB WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS CONNED ON BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BY ORDER DATED 29/03/2017 AND THEREFORE NOW THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MAGNUM EXPORTS PAGE 3 OF 6 PRIVATE LIMITED 262 ITR 10, WHEREIN IT WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT IT WAS HELD THAT: - 17. THE APPEAL AND THE REFERENCE TO THE TRIBUNAL IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND IT DOES NOT BECOME FINAL UNTIL THE ASSESSMENT IS FINALLY MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IF IT IS FILED BEFORE THE DECI SION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF A RECEIPT ON TRANSFER OF AN IMPORT LICENCE THEN THE RELIEF CANNOT BE DENIED PROVIDED THE FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN IS NOT MANDATORY. 18. THAT APART IN CIT V. SHIVANAND ELECTRONICS [1994] 209 ITR 631 (BOM.), A DIVISION BENCH HAD HELD WHILE DEALING WITH SECTION 80J(6A) THAT AN AUDIT REPORT REQUIRED THEREUNDER TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF THE INCOME WAS NOT MANDATORY IN THE CONTEXT THAT A BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 80J(6A) O N FULFILMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THOSE CONDITIONS MAY BE MANDATORY. THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF THE REPORT MAY BE MANDATORY. BUT THAT IS NOT SO INSOFAR AS THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING IT ALONG WITH THE RETURN IS CONCERNED. IN A GIVEN CASE, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE SUCH REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND FILED IT SUBSEQUENTLY BUT BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD NOT BE FATAL. IN CIT V. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPN. [2002] 254 ITR 61 (PUNJ. & HAR.) (FB), IT WAS HELD THAT FILING OF AUDIT REPORT UND ER SECTION 32AB(1)/(5) ALONG WITH RETURN IS NOT MANDATORY. A PART OF THE STATUTE HAS TO BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT. WHETHER A STATUTE IS MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY DEPENDS UPON THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT UPON THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH TH E INTENT IS CLOTHED. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO BE ASCERTAINED NOT ONLY FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE PROVISION BUT ALSO BY CONSIDERING ITS NATURE, ITS DESIGN AND THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW FROM CONSTRUING IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE WOR D 'SHALL' IN A STATUTORY PROVISION THOUGH GENERALLY TAKEN IN A MANDATORY SENSE, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IN EVERY CASE IT SHALL HAVE THAT EFFECT THAT THE STATUTE ARE TO BE PUNCTILIOUSLY FOLLOWED AND IN DEFAULT THE PROCEEDING WOULD BE INVALID . 19. IN CIT V. JAYANT PATEL [2001] 248 ITR 199 AGAIN DEALING WITH SECTION 80J(6A), THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD TAKEN THE SAME VIEW. IT HAD GONE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE FILED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IN CIT V. SHAHZEDANAND CHARITY TRUST [1997] 228 I TR 2923 (PUNJ. & HAR.) WHILE DEALING WITH SECTION 12A(B) THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN. IT WAS HELD THAT FILING OF AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN WAS NOT MANDATORY BUT DIRECTORY. IN ZENITH PROCESSING MILLS V. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (GUJ.) WHILE DEALING WITH SECTION 80J(6A) HAD TOOK THE SAME VIEW THAT FILING OF AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN IS NOT MANDATORY BUT DIRECTORY SINCE SUCH REQUIREMENT FALLS IN THE REALM OF PROCEDURE FOR FURNISHING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. IT CAN BE FURNISHED AT THE TIME WHILE ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE IS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY. THIS COURT IN A DIVISION BENCH IN CIT V. RAI BAHADUR BISSESSWARLAL MOTILAL MALWASIE TRUST [1992] 195 ITR 8251 WHILE DEALING WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12A HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE FILI NG OF AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY. THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS ARRIVED AT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (5) AND SUB - SECTION (9) OF SECTION 139. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (5) AND SUB - S ECTION (9) OF SECTION 139 ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY ANY DEFECT IN THE RETURN OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER PAGE 4 OF 6 TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE ANY DEFECT IN THE RETURN. UNDER SUB - SECTION (5), A TIME - LIMIT IS PROVIDED FOR. WHEREAS SUB - SECTION (9) DOES NOT PRO VIDE FOR ANY TIME - LIMIT, BUT DEFINITELY IT MEANS THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETE. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CONFER ANY DUTY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE ANY DEFECT THOUGH IT MAY POINT OUT THE SAME TO BE ASS ESSEE. 20. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143, WHICH WAS SO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM AGAINST THE RECEIPT ON TRANSFER OF THE IMPORT LICENCE UNTIL BEFO RE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. BUT THEN THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BECOME FINAL TILL THEN. EVEN AT THAT STAGE LEAVE MAY BE ASKED FOR, WHEN IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REMOVING THE DEFECT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE MAY NOT BE CONCERNED WITH THAT PROPO SITION. 21. THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA IN A SINGLE BENCH IN MURALI EXPORT HOUSE V. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 257 HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THIS QUESTION HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 80HHC WITH REFERENCE TO SUB - SECTION (5) AND SUB - SECTION (9) OF SECTION 139. IN THE SA ID DECISION, IT WAS HELD THAT SECOND PART OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80HHC REGARDING FURNISHING OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH THE RETURN IS NOT MANDATORY PROVISION BUT ONLY A DIRECTORY ONE. IF IT IS FOUND THAT SOME DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED, THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE FILED WITHIN A TIME SPECIFIED BEFORE MAKING ANY COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTIVE RETURN HAS BEEN CLEARLY CONFERRED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BY SECTION 139(5) AND 139(9) OF THE ACT. 22. THIS DECISION HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE IS MANDATORY AND IT CANNOT CLAIM DEDUCTION UNLESS THE CERTIFICATE IS FILED. BUT THE COURT DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE OPINION THAT SUCH DEDUCTION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IF THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. THE FIRST PART OF SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80HHC MAKES IT MANDATORY AND NECESSARY TO FURNISH IN PRESCRIBED FORM THE AUDIT REPORT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. BUT THE SEC OND PART BEING PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A CERTIFICATE OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN. THIS IS DIRECTORY IN NATURE AS IT CALLS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AS OBSERVED IN THE SAID DECISION. 23. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THOSE OF THIS HIGH COURT, PARTICULARLY, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE SAME. SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80HHC CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS. THE FIRST P ART REQUIRES FILING OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION WITHOUT WHICH THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ADMISSIBLE. THIS PART IS MANDATORY AND NO DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED WITHOUT SUCH CERTIFICATE. THE SECOND PART CONSISTS OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH AUDIT REPORT IS TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. FILING OF THE REPORT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. WITHOUT SUCH AUDIT REPORT, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED. BUT WHEN THIS IS TO BE FILED IS PURELY A MATTER OF PROCEDURE. THIS HAS NOTH ING TO DO WITH ANY CONDITION. THEREFORE, SUB - SECTION (4) IS MANDATORY IN ITS FIRST PART, BUT DIRECTORY IN ITS SECOND PART. THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED ALONG WITH RETURN. PAGE 5 OF 6 24. NOW, THE QUESTION COMES W HETHER IT HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS OVER OR IT CAN BE FILED EVEN AT THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS IS DEPENDANT ON THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE PROVISION HAVING REGARD TO THE SCHEME OF THE PROV ISION, ITS CONTEXT, ITS NATURE, ITS DESIGN AND THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT COULD BE TREATED TO BE DIRECTORY. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT IT CAN BE FILED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. BUT IT IS NOT NECESSAR Y FOR US TO DECIDE THE SAID QUESTION HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR FACTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. IF IT WAS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE EXPORT OF THE GOODS AND MERCHANDISE IN ITS ACTUALITY WHICH IS MUCH DEPENDENT ON SUCH CERTIFICATION, THEN IT MAY BE HELD TO BE SO MANDATORY AS TO CONFINE THE SAME WITHIN THE TIME - LIMIT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETE OR WITHIN THE TIME - LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 139(1). INASMUCH AS, THE NECESSITY OF AUDIT REPORT IS RELATED TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE VERACITY OF THE C LAIM AGAINST THE ACTUALITY OF THE EXPORT HAVING BEEN MADE. IT MAY BE LITTLE DIFFERENT WHEN THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM IS NOT MUCH DEPENDANT ON AUTHENTICATION, A SITUATION WHICH IS NOT SO DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN OR PROVE. WHEN BY LEGAL FICTION THE RECEIPT AGA INST SALE OF IMPORT LICENCE IS INCLUDED IN EXPORT TURNOVER, THEN IT IS THE RECEIPT AGAINST THE TRANSFER OF THE IMPORT LICENCE TO BE AUTHENTICATED IN THE AUDIT REPORT. THIS SEEMS TO BE MORE A FORMALITY IN THAT SENSE. HAVING REGARD TO SUCH A SITUATION, IT MA Y, THEREFORE, NOT BE INTERPRETED SO STRICTLY. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A CASE FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT AT THE TRIBUNAL STAGE WOULD NOT BE FATAL TO DISENTITLE THE CLAIMANT. BUT THEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME AND REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT THE ENTITLEMENT CAN STILL BE PURSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT REPORT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IS YET TO BE MADE AND THERE IS A SCOPE FOR MAKING SUCH ASSESSMENT RELATING TO THE ENTITLEMENT TO THE CLAIM. 25. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HAD RELIED ON A DECISION ON THIS COURT IN CIT V. CAPITAL ELECTRONICS [IT REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 1998, DATED 11 - 2 - 2003]. BUT THAT DECISION WILL NOT HELP US IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT WAS IN RELATION TO SECTION 27 1B, READ WITH SECTION 273B RELATING TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WITH CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 44AB. SECTION 44AB PROVIDES A STIPULATION OF TIME - LIMIT FOR OBTAINING THE AUDIT REPORT WHICH IS MANDATORY. BUT THIS COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF ITS FILING ALONG WITH THE RETURN OR WHETHER THE FILING IS MANDATORY OR DISCRETIONARY. THEREFORE, THAT DECISION DOES NOT COME TO AID OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. 26. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE QUESTION NO. 4 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER FORM NO. 10 CCB DATED 25/09/2012 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE , WE SET ASIDE THE WHOLE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM PAGE 6 OF 6 OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AND THEN DECIDE ISSUE ON THE MERIT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FORM. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WITH ABOVE DIRECTION. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 4 / 09 / 2017 . - S D / - - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 4 / 0 9 / 2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI