Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. M/s. Rajsthan Liquors Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 453/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87742 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.453/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 ASSTT. CIT-6 KANPUR V. M/S RAJSTHAN LIQUORS PVT. LTD. 312, 3 RD FLOOR CITY CENTRE THE MALL, KANPUR TAN/PAN:AABCR8605E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. RAJNISH YADAV, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 26 11 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 01 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE UNIT WISE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I.E. P & L A/C AND BALANCE SHEET AS THE SAME MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B OR UNDER CHAPTER-VIA, AND IN INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF SUCH NATURE THAT WITHOUT UNIT WISE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO SECTION IN THE ACT THAT CAN PREVENT THE AO FROM ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR EACH UNIT IF NECESSARY FOR ASCERTAINING THE ACTUAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. :- 2 -: 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-L KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BOTTLING OF INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS.59,09,894/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ITS INCOME FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES:- PARTICULARS FIGURES AS AT THE END OF THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR 31.03.2009 SALES 527,089,975.63 INTEREST RECEIVED 18,52,516.03 MISC. INCOME 3,38,619.00 BOTTLING CHARGE 4,69,27,286.00. LEASE RENT 1 2,00,000.00 AGRICULTURE INCOME -- DISCOUNT AND REBATE 3,51,432.12 BOND OPERATIONAL -CHD 11,72,171.00 INCENTIVE RECEIVED 5,88,918.70 BALANCES W/OFF 52,966.69 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE INCOME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HAVING EXAMINED THE TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE ACCOUNT FOR THE BOTTLING UNIT, TRADING BUSINESS AND ROYALTY. THE ASSESSEE :- 3 -: WAS ALSO ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TO RECONCILE THE COPY OF ACCOUNT RECEIVED FROM M/S MOHAN MAKING AND M/S REDICO KHETAN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FILE CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM UNNAO DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LIMITED; RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED; ASHOK CHANDAK AND SHRI GANGA NAGAR COMMODITIES. IN RESPONSE THERETO, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS A BOTTLING UNIT AT KALDHERA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN WHERE THE SALES OF MOHAN MEAKINGS LIMITED PRODUCT RUM WAS DEALT WITH, AS THE SALES ARE CONDUCTED ON OWN ACCOUNT. THE PROFITABILITY STATEMENT OF KALDHERA UNIT WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED ON ROYALTY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET WAS NOT PREPARED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH THE BOTTLING UNIT AT DERABASI, PUNJAB, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS DECLARED BOTTLING CHARGES FROM RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED. SALES AND PURCHASES AND OTHER MANUFACTURING EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE EXCISE LAW, BUT THE RECEIPTS OF THE COMPANY STAND ONLY ON THE ACCOUNT OF BOTTLING FEES RECEIVED. THE PROFITABILITY STATEMENT OF DERABASI UNIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PREPARATION OF SEPARATE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR DERABASI UNIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE CLAIM OF BOTTLING CHARGES RECEIVED FROM ADBL LIMITED AND THE SALES, PURCHASES, OTHER MANUFACTURING EXPENSES, OFFICE EXPENSES, ETC. THOUGH BOOKED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY, BUT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASON THAT SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT PREPARED. ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PREPARATION OF SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET :- 4 -: AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSES. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A/10B OF THE ACT OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VIA. THE UNIT-WISE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT PREPARED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION, HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 3.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE POINTS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. NO DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS, BILLS AND BOOK ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO, NOR THERE IS ANY SUCH OBSERVATION IN THE STATUTORY AUDIT OR REPORT AS WELL AS IN THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY OBSERVING THAT- *IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSED HAS NOT ALLOCATED THE EXPENSES IN THE ACCOUNT OF RADICO KHAITAN AND SEAGRAM FOR WHOM THE BOTTLING DONE AS PER AGREEMENT. THE ABOVE FACTS REVEAL THAT THE ACCOUNTS AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSES ARE SO COMPLEX THAT THE CORRECT INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS FOR EACH OF THE UNIT CANNOT BE WORKED OUT. :- 5 -: THEREFORE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT' 3.3.2 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS), STATE; 'WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSES, OR WHERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB SECTION (1) OR ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSES, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 3.3.3. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSTT,. ORDER, IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE A.O. WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF EACH OF THE UNITS SEPARATELY RATHER THAN THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS A WHOLE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE I.T. ACT FOR AN ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN UNIT WISE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND BALANCE- SHEET. SUCH DETAILS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B OF UNDER CHAPTER -VIA, BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE UNIT WISE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I.E. P & L A/C AND BALANCE-SHEET. SECONDLY, THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE 'COMPLEX'. 'COMPLEXITY' OF ACCOUNTS AND 'CORRECTNESS' OF ACCOUNTS ARE TWO ALTOGETHER SEPARATE CONCEPTS. FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3), WHAT IS REQUIRED AND IMPORTANT IS THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF ACCOUNT AND NOT THE COMPLEXITY PER-SE OF THE ACCOUNTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE COMBINED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT ENTRIES WHICH WERE ALSO EXPLAINED. THE TERM 'COMPLEXITY' OF ACCOUNTS FINDS REFERENCE ONLY IN SEC. 142(2A) OF THE ACT., WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH SHOWED INCORRECTNESS AND/OR INCOMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. VARIOUS CASE LAWS :- 6 -: (SUPRA) RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ALSO SUPPORT THIS VIEW. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3.3.4 IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT ONCE THE VERY REJECTION OF THE BOOKS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE, ANY ESTIMATION OF INCOME THEREUPON WILL BE ALSO UNSUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AD-HOC ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND BESIDES PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. D.R. HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,78,26,506/- IN OWN ACCOUNT AS INDIRECT EXPENSES RELATING TO DERABASSI UNIT AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WHETHER THESE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO REDICO KHETAN OR TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN REDICO KHETAN AND THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DIFFERENT COST WAS TO BE BORNE BY REDICO KHETAN AND THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS AS TO HOW MUCH INDIRECT EXPENSES WERE DEBITED BY REDICO KHETAN, THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION, HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NO DOUBT ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT WHEN CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN PREPARED, BUT WHENEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF INDIRECT EXPENSES BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND REDICO KHETAN, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FURNISHED THE DETAILS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING :- 7 -: OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF INDIRECT EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED PART OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20 LALKHS, HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INFLATED AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS MADE. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN HIS ORDER, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE CONFIRMED. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES PLACING HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A/10B OR UNDER CHAPTER VIA WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF ITS UNIT. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE REJECTING THE SAME. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY WITH REGARD TO PREPARATION OF INDEPENDENT BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT, WHICH IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. 8. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 5.5 OF HIS ORDER THAT CERTAIN COSTS ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN COSTS ARE TO BE BORNE BY REDICO KHETAN, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,78,26,506/- AS INDIRECT EXPENSES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OR BREAKUP OF THE INDIRECT EXPENSES TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW MUCH INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY REDICO KHETAN, THE COMPLETE INFORMATION WERE NOT :- 8 -: FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20 LAKHS, HAVING OBSERVED THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES WERE INFLATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADVERTED ON THIS ISSUE. HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT. WITH RESPECT TO THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO PREPARE SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT, BUT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF A PARTICULAR EXPENSE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED FROM THE AGREEMENT THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN EXPENSES BY REDICO KHETAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,78,26,506/- AS INDIRECT EXPENSES TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES WHEN IT WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF COSTS BORNE BY REDICO KHETAN ALSO. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY UNIT. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED PROPERLY BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF INDIRECT EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ACCOUNTS AND ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF INDIRECT EXPENSES, WHICH WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND REDICO KHETAN AS :- 9 -: PER AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIM TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE LD. CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JANUARY, 2015 JJ:08-1501 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR