Lajpat Rai, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4433/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65709 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMANA SEN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI D BENC H BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV , JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NOS.4433 & 4434/DEL/2012 AYS: 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI LAJPAT RAI 124, DHARAM PURI SADAR, MEERUT V/S . INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MEERUT [PAN : ACFPR 6303 J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. SUMANA SEN, DR DATE OF HEARING 17-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-10-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED ON 17.8.2012 BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 01.05.2012 OF THE LD. CIT (A)-MEERUT, RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I.T.A. NO.4433/DEL./2012[AY 2003-04] THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT A PPEAL MEERUT HAVE ERRED THE ADDITION OF ` `1,19,488/- AS CREDITOR IN SPITE OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS. I.T.A. NO.4434/DEL./2012[AY 2004-05 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED C IT(A), MEERUT HAVE ERRED THE ADDITION OF ` ` 3,10,000/- AS CREDITOR IN SPITE OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS. ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, NONE APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE NOR SUBMITTED ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. CONSIDE RING THE NATURE OF ISSUE, THE BENCH PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DR. 3. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS FOR T HE AY 2003-04 ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 7,03,365/- FILED ON 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2003 BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENE D U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT TOTAL SALES IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WERE REFLECTED AT ` `6,08,19,252/- WHILE AS PER THE PARTIES TOTAL SALES WERE ` `10,15,04,678/- AS DETAILED HEREUNDER:- 1) M/S CENTRAL DISTILLERY & BRAVERAGES LTD. ` ` 6,56,39,705/- 2) M/S S.G. ENTERPRISES ` ` 3,58,64,973/- TOTAL SALES MADE BY YOU ` `10,15,04,678/- 3.1 HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SA LES WERE RECONCILED AND NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSUED TO SHRI GUPTA TRADERS, A S UNDRY CREDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID PARTY DID NOT RESPOND. ACCORDIN GLY, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` ` 1,19,488/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE BALANCE IN TH E ACCOUNT OF M/S GUPTA TRADERS. 3.2 SIMILARLY, IN THE AY 2004-05, THE AO POINTED O UT THAT IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, SHRI KRISHNA TRADER S, A SUNDRY CREDITOR, DID NOT RESPOND NOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` ` 3,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 4 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS O F THE AO IN THE AY 2003-04, AS UNDER:- ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 3 5.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR FILED A CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 4 6A. THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT A NOTICE DATED 8. 9.2010 UNDER SECTION 133 (6) WAS AGAIN ISSUED TO M/S GUPTA TRADE RS, DEHRADUN FOR COMPLIANCE ON 15.9.2010 BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIV ED. HE HAS, THEREFORE, COMMENTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CO NFIRMATION WAS NOT PROVED. THE AR IN HIS REJOINDER HAS STATED THA T TOO SHORT A NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE CREDITOR FOR COMPLIANCE AND IN ANY CASE IF THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS NOT COMPLIED, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131. 5.3 DECISION AND REASONS THEREFORE: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL TH E REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONVINCE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITO R, NAMELY M/S GUPTA TRADERS. A COPY OF CONFIRMATION FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT HAVE THE PIN CODE OF M/S GUPTA TRADERS. THE ALLEGED CREDITOR HAS ALSO NOT MENTION ED HIS PAN ETC. THE AR HAS TAKEN NO FURTHER INITIATIVE TO FURNISH A COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR SHOWING THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTION OR TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEF ORE ME. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THESE FACTS, I INFER THAT THE CREDI TOR WAS RIGHTLY HELD AS NOT BEING GENUINE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AD DITION MADE, THEREFORE, IS UPHELD. 4.1 SIMILARLY IN THE AY 2004-05, THE LD. CIT(A) UP HELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 5.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR FILED A CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 4 6A. THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT A NOTICE DATED 8. 9.2010 UNDER SECTION 133 (6) WAS AGAIN ISSUED TO M/S SHRI KRISHN A TRADERS, MUZAFFARPUR FOR COMPLIANCE ON 15.9.2010 BUT NO REPL Y WAS RECEIVED. HE HAS, THEREFORE, COMMENTED THAT THE GE NUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATION WAS NOT PROVED. THE AR IN HIS REJ OINDER HAS STATED THAT TOO SHORT A NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE CRE DITOR FOR COMPLIANCE AND IN ANY CASE IF THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS NOT COMPLIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131. ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 4 5.3 DECISION AND REASONS THEREFORE: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL TH E REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONVINCE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITO R, NAMELY M/S SHRI KRISHNA TRADERS. A COPY OF CONFIRMATION FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT HAVE THE PIN CODE OF M/S SHRI KRISHNA TRADERS. THE ALLEGED CREDITOR HAS ALSO NOT MENTIONED HIS PAN ETC. THE AR HAS TAKEN NO FURTHER INITIATIVE TO FURNISH A COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR SHOWING THE DETAILS OF TRA NSACTION OR TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR BEFORE ME. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THESE FACTS, I INFE R THAT THE CREDITOR WAS RIGHTLY HELD AS NOT BEING GENUINE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDITION MADE, THEREFORE, IS UPHELD. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORE SAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE LD. DR MERELY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` ` 1,19,488/- IN THE AY 2003-04 AND ` ` 3,10,000/- IN THE AY 2004-05 MERELY BECAUSE THE CREDITORS M/S GU PTA TRADER AND M/S SHRI KRISHNA TRADERS DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 133(6) OF THE ACT. INDISPUTABLY, NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO BY THESE PARTIES NOR THE AO EXAMINED THE NATURE OF THESE LIABILITIES AS TO W HETHER THESE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES OR EXPENSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE GENUINEN ESS OF PURCHASES AND EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED AT ALL BY THE AO IN T HESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLICATION UNDER RU LE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIONS OF THESE PARTIES ,BUT PIN C ODE OF THESE PARTIES AND THEIR PAN WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THESE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CI T(A) NOR SUBMITTED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR SHOWING DETAILS OF THE TRAN SACTION THE LD. CIT(A) DISCARDED THESE CONFIRMATIONS AND UPHELD THE ADDITI ON IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, WITHOUT EXAMINING EITHER THE NATURE OF THESE LIABILITIES OR FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,19 62 IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 5 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUG NED ORDERS AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS BEFO RE THE AO AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO . EVEN THE NATURE OF THESE LIABILITIES IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS NOR THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER WHICH THESE AMOUNTS COULD BE ADDED ,HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CARE TO RECORD ANY REASONS BEFORE ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOR APPEARS TO HAVE ASCERTAINED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EVIDENCE THROUGH INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES OR THROUGH THE AO . NOW WHAT ARE THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, I S NOT EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IN NUTSHELL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHEL D THE ADDITION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RU LES,1962 . THE LD. CIT(A) ARRIVED AT HIS CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM SUBMITTING T HE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO AS PER PROVIS IONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 . HERE WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEV ANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962, WHICH READ AS UNDER: (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER TH AN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVAN T TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 6 (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3)THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HA S BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITN ESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMI NATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTH ER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETH ER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271..' 6.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-R. (1)(B) & (C) OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFF ICIENT CAUSE . IN HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS' CASE [2005] 275 ITR 496 (ALL), BY MAKING AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION ON RULE 46A OF THE RULES IN PARAGRAPH 10 AT PAGE 500 AND 501, IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER RULE 46A THE AUTHORITY IS NOT PERMI TTED TO ACT WHIMSICALLY WHILE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION UNDER IT .IN THE CASE U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A),CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE AND ADMITTEDLY, THE SAID DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT SU BMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) IN TERMS OF RULE 46A TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, ENTAIL AN ELEMENT OF DISCRETION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERC ISED IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE ARE NOT ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE LOW ER AUTHORITIES OWING TO LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BUT ALSO IN SITUATIONS WHER E THE FRESH EVIDENCE WOULD ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. OF COURSE, THE POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY A ND FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED. HERE WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 7 MANISH BUILD WELL (P.) LTD.,16 TAXMANN.COM27(DELHI) HELD THAT THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 46A MUST BE SHOWN TO EXIST BEFORE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED AND EVERY PROCEDURAL REQUIREME NT MENTIONED IN THE RULE HAS TO BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH SO THAT THE RULE I S MEANINGFULLY EXERCISED . ONCE THE ASSESSEE INVOKES RULE 46A AND PRAYS FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A), THEN THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED I N THE SAID RULE HAS TO BE SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED. A DISTINCTION SHOULD BE RECO GNIZED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE INVOKES RULE 46A TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND A CASE WHERE THE CI T (A), WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE AP PEAL, CONSIDERS IT FIT TO CAUSE OR MAKE A FURTHER ENQUIRY BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS V ESTED IN HIM UNDER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250. IT IS ONLY WHEN HE EXER CISES HIS STATUTORY POWER SUO MOTO UNDER THE ABOVE SUB-SECTION THAT THE REQUIREM ENTS OF RULE 46A NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHENEVER THE ASSESS EE WHO IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM INVOKES RULE 46A, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT (A) TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE STRICTLY SO THAT THE RULE IS MEANINGFULLY EXERCISED AND NOT EXERCISED IN A ROUTINE OR CURSORY MANNER . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A INTERDICTS THE CIT (A) FR OM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM UNL ESS THE AO HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE AN D REBUT THE SAME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT RECORD ANY REASONS IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(2) OF THE IT RULES,1962 AT ALL BEFORE ADMITTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FO LLOW THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 NOR EVEN RECORDED AN Y FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE SAID EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO AND NOR EVEN ASCER TAINED THE NATURE OF THESE LIABILITIES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US TO HIS FILE, WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AS ALSO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THER EAFTER, DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, ITA N OS.4433 & 4434 /DEL./2012 8 BRINGING OUT CLEARLY THE NATURE OF THESE LIABILITIE S. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF, AS I NDICATED HEREINBEFORE. 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 8. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED B UT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),MEERUT 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-MEERUT 5. DR, ITAT, D BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT