DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. BMR Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 4141/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S C
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6503 /DE L/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S. BMR ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 22 ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 5, TOWER - A, DLF CYBER CITY - I, DLF PHASE - III, GURGAON PAN : AABCE4046Q ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO. 4141/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S. BMR BUSINESS SOLUTION PVT. LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BMR ADVISORS PVT. LTD.), 22 ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 5, TOWER - A, DLF CYBER CITY - I, DLF PHASE - III PAN : AABCE4046Q ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY SH. AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV.; SH. VISHAL KALRA, ADV. & SH. S.C. AGGARWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING 22.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.02.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE APPEALS BY THE R EVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30/10/2012 AND 30/04/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - VI, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT - (A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 RESPECTIVELY. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, ONE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED AND , THEREFORE , BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.6503/DEL/2012 FOR AY: 2009 - 10 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL HAVING ITA NO. 6503 / DEL/2 012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,35,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS PAID TO ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE PROVISION OF THAT SECTION 36(1 )(II) SAYS THAT BONUS/COMMISSIONER PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN PAID AS PROFIT OR DIVIDEND. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING OF RS.65,42,902/ - ON A/C OF EXPENSES FOR SERVICES TO CLIENTS U/S 37 IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. B RIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20/09/2009 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 21,44,46,010/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE 3 ACT ) WAS ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. THE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 27/12/2011 AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ), WH O ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION , AMOUNTING TO RS.2,35, 00, 000 / - ON ACCOU NT OF BONUS PAID TO ONE OF THE D IRECTOR S, SH. SANJAY MEHTA. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT BONUS/COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTOR/EMPLOYEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION , IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN PAID AS PROFIT OR DIVIDEND , RATHER THAN BONUS OR COMMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT NO DIVIDEND WAS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE SHAREHOLDERS, WHICH INCLUDED DIRECTORS O F THE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS AVOIDING DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX BY RESORTING TO DISTRIBUTE DIVIDEND IN THE FORM OF BONUS OR COMMISSION. THE LD. CIT - (A), HOWEVER , ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT - ( A ) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: . IT IS FURTHER NOTICES THA T IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - XI, NEW DELHI IN THE APPELLANT S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. BONY POLYMERS (P) LTD., 36 SOT 456 ADDITION S WERE DELETED. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4 3.1 B EFORE US , THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR ) SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH, ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.2 THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 177 SUPPORTING ITS CONTENTION THAT BONUS PAID WAS IN THE NATURE OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTOR . HOWEVER HE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING THAT IN T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL AND CONCURRED FOR RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 3.3 WE HAVE H EARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4743/DEL/2010 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 6. IN REPLY, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COMPANY IS A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY FIRM WHO RENDERED THE SERVICES OF CONSULTANCY. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA IS ONE OF THE MAIN DIRECTORS OF CONSULTING SERVICES BEING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HE WAS ALSO RENDERING SIMILAR SERVICES IN PAST AND WAS GETTING HUGE REMUNERATION IN PAST. ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS DRAWN ON PAGE 8 TO 11 WHERE SUCH DETAILS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANC E ON A DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 41 ITR 343 & IN FACT THE DECISION IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A QUERY FROM THE 5 BENCH THAT WHAT REPLY WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT TO RENDERING OF SERVICES, LD. AR COULD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATER IAL OR EVIDENCE AND WHAT EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE CONSIDERED AND THEN ONLY THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONSIDERATION AND CONSIDER THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT MATTER NEEDS RE - VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S MAIN PLAN FOR DENYING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPECT TO RENDERING THE SERVICES OF SHRI SANJAY MEHTA WHO IS A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT WHATEVER THE EVIDENCES WERE FILED, THEY WERE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEY WERE NOT SENT TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND AGAINST FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE CIT(A), HOWEVER, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THIS IS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY SHRI SANJAY MEHT A. THOUGH LD. AR HAS HEAVILY CONTESTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE FILED, HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE THAT WHAT CLARIFICATION OR EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CLAIM THAT SERVICES HAS BEEN RENDERED. 3.4 WE NOTE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, NO EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO NO SUCH EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH WITH THE DIRECTIONS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL(SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE G ROUND NO. 1 OF TH E APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 65,42,902/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS 6 OF PARTY WISE OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES(OPE) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN SOME OF THE PARTIES THE OPE WAS POSITIVE I.E. RECEIPT IS MORE THAN THE EXPENDITURE, AND IN SOME OF THE PARTIES THE OPE WAS NEGATIVE I.E. RECEIPT IS LESS THAN THE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT WHEREVER THE EXPENDITURE WAS MORE THAN THE RECEIPT, THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT COMPANY WAS KEEPING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED AND ALL THE EXPENSES / INCOME WAS DULY VOUCHED. I T WAS ALSO CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.82.23 CRORES AND AGAINST WHICH THE OPE IS ONLY RS. 60.42 LACS AND WHICH CONSTITUTED ONLY 0.75% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT AND , THUS , SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 4.1 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE AMOUNTS WERE DEBITED IN THE NAME OF CONCERN ED PARTY AND NET AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS CREDITED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF BOTH THESE AMOUNTS AND THE BALANCING FIGURE WAS CLAIMED AS OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES. 4.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTED AS DEBTOR AND ACCORDING TO HIM , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NEVER RAISED BILLS AGAINST THE CONCERNED PARTIES EVEN THOUGH THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTED AS DEBTOR. IN VIEW OF NOT RAISIN G BILLS CORRESPONDING TO THOSE EXPENSES TO THOSE PARTIES , ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITI ONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT OF EXPENDITURE LAID OUT WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND , ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES. 4.3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF SALA RIES, RENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COST ETC, WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUT ABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR CLIENT ASSIGNMENT. 7 REGARDING THE OTHER OPE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRAVELLING, CONVEYANCE, HOTELS STAY, COURIER, TELEP HONE ETC, WHICH ARE NORMALLY INCURRED FOR THE CLIENT WORK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SOME CASES , ALL THE OPE COULD BE CHARGED / RECOVERED IN FULL FROM THE CLIENTS BUT IN SOME CASES DEPENDING ON THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CLIENT IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, LESS OR NO EXPENSES MIGHT BE RECOVERABLE OR ACTUALLY RECOVERED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT TRACKS THE OPE SEPARATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOICING TO THE CLIENT AND DEBIT SUCH OPE TO A SEPARATE EXPENSE HEAD IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE AMOU NT WHICH WAS NOT RECOVERED/RECOVERABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR FROM THE CLIENT OUT OF THE OPE, WERE SHOWN AS REDUCTION FROM THE FEE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT SERVICES. THE AS SESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS PAID FRINGE BENEFIT TAX (FBT) ON THE OPE AS ITS OWN EXPENSES AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION , THE LD. CIT - ( A ) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.5 BEFORE U S, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE AS THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE MANNER SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE OF BONUS TO DIRECTORS , RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL(SUPRA) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 4.6 ON THE CONTRARY , LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 38 TO 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH CONTAINS DETAILS OF THE PARTY WISE OPE AND SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE EITHER IN THE PRECEDING YEARS OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS . THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED 8 ON THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT SAID EX PENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE MAINLY ON THE ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS T HAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENT S TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIMS TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 3 7 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE GROUND NO. 3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.4141/DEL/2014 FOR AY: 2010 - 11 7 . IN ITA NO. 4141/D EL/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO FILE APPEAL IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE BEFORE THE ITAT, NEW DELHI, OF THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL. 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,97,43,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS PAID TO ONE O F ITS DIRECTOR, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISION OF THAT SECTION 36(I)(II) SAYS 9 THAT BONUS/COMMISSION PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN PAID AS PROFIT OR DIVIDEND . 2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE R IGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 8 . G ROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO G ROUNDS NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6503 /DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THUS, FOLLOWING OUR FINDING IN THE SAID APPEAL, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 9 . THE GROUND NO. 2 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 T H FEB . , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 T H FEBRUARY , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI