Mohd Yunus Qureshi, Hapur V. ITO, Ward-1, Hapur

ITA 4936/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3936 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MOHD YUNUS QURESHI, C/O AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, CHAMBER NO.206-207, ANSAL SATYAM, RDC RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD (UP). PAN: ABPPY3882L VS. ITO, WARD-1, HAPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2013 OF THE CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR, RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 3. IN GROUND NO.2 AND 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,69,600/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF BUFFALO OMASUM AND MEAT. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 2 ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2 ,53,216/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT THERE ARE SIX CREDITORS, NAMELY, SHRI ATIQ QURESHI, FARIQUE QURES HI, GAYASUDDIN QURESHI, HUSNAIN AND JAVED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO T HEM WAS RS.11,69,600/-. HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THESE CREDITORS. OUT O F FIVE CREDITORS THREE UNSERVED ENVELOPES IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRI HUSNAIN, ATIQ QU RESHI, SHRI FARIQUE WERE RECEIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS: INCOMPLETE ADDRESS. SO FAR AS THE OTHER TWO CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED, NEITHER ANY REPLY WAS RECEIVED NOR UNSERVED ENVELOPES WERE RECEIVED BACK. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF STATEMENTS. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THOSE CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NOR COULD PRODUCE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, TREATED THESE CREDITORS AS BOGUS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,69,60 0/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,69,600/- ON THE GROUND T HAT THREE ENVELOPES CONTAINING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RECEI VED BACK UNNERVED FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REMARKS INCOMPLETE ADDRESS, FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF AFORESAID TWO CREDITORS NO COMPLIANCE WAS M ADE. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS COULD NOT PRODUCE SUCH CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AO SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PLEADED THA T HE WAS READY TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED OR THE AO. HOWEVER, THE FACT ON RECORD IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O EXPLAIN WHY SUCH CREDITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 3 SUCH SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE NO FORC E AND ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. ONCE THE ENVELOPES CONTAINING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED/UNCOMPLIED THE ONUS SHIFTED ON TO THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT BY NOT PRODUCING SUCH CREDITORS HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS BUR DEN U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11,69,600/-. THE SAME IS HERE CONFIR MED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.L IS DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. REFERRING TO PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESS EE ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008, THE LD. COUNSEL DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,69,600/-. REFERRING TO PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. COUNSEL DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE SAID LETTER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUEST ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE IS READY TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS BEFORE HIM FOR H IS EXAMINATION. REFERRING TO PAGE 39-43 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL DREW THE A TTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THOSE PARTIES AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REGULAR TRANSACTION WITH THOSE PARTIES AND PAYMENTS HAVE BE EN MADE TO THEM SUBSEQUENTLY. REFERRING TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COU NSEL DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 3 RD MARCH, 2009 WHEREIN SOME OF THE CREDITORS ARE APPEARING. REFERRING TO COPY OF THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 29 TO 31, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 4 ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) F OR BOTH THE YEARS HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SUNDRY CREDITORS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITU ANURAG AGARWAL (2010) 2 TAXMANN.COM 134 (DEL) , HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD DOUBTED THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF SUNDRY CRED ITORS OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH AND ABOVE AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NEITHER INCOME TAX ASSESSEES NOR HAVING PANS A ND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ENTRIES REGARDING SALES AN D PURCHASE, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE DISALLOWED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT BOOKS WERE REJECTED, HO WEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISALLOWED THE PURCHASES FROM THOSE CREDITORS N OR THE TRADING RESULTS HAVE BEEN DISTURBED AND ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN DISALLOWANCE FOR CORRESPONDING PURCHASES WERE NOT M ADE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS IT WAS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THE CREDITORS OUTSTANDING RELATED TO PURCHASES AND TRADE RESULTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUDHA LOYALKA VS. ITO (2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 30 (DELHI), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE HAS HELD THAT ADDITIO N CANNOT BE MADE TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69C IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO CR EDITORS TOWARDS PURCHASES SINCE THE SAID PURCHASES WERE DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND SALES MADE AGAINST THOSE PURCHASES WERE NOT DISPUTED. REFERRING TO TH E DECISION OF THE LUCKNOW ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 5 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ZAZSONS EXPORTS LTD., 158 ITD 1, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HA S HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION ONLY ON ACC OUNT OF NON-VERIFIABILITY OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BUT THERE BEING NO DISPUTE AS REGA RDS PURCHASES, AND TRADING RESULTS HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED, ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 6 8 WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHRAJ MALIK, VIDE ITA NO.1789/DEL/2015, ORDER DATE D 15.05.2019 , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THA T WHEN PURCHASES AND SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) WHICH ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEN, THE TRADE CREDITORS CANNOT BE DOUBTE D WHO HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN ACCEPTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE ALSO RELIED ON VA RIOUS OTHER DECISIONS AS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) I S NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). IN HIS ALTERNATE SUBMISSION, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS EXAMINATION. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE GONE THROU GH THE PAPER BOOK AND THE VARIOUS CASE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I FIND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 6 RS.11,69,600/- IN RESPECT OF FIVE CREDITORS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THEM WERE EITHER RETURNED UNSERVED OR NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE T HEM OR FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REASONS FOR WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE PRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE PURCHASE AND SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND BOOKS WER E NOT REJECTED AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REGULAR TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SA ID PARTIES AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) WITH OUT MAKING ANY ADDITION, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IN FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL. A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TH E ABOVE PARTIES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REGULAR TRANSACTION WITH THE SAID PARTIES. A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 SHOWS THAT NO S UCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THOSE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE A REQUEST THAT HE WAS READY TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS, HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND THEREBY HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES AND THE SALES HAVE ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHE R THE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6) WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED OR IN ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 7 SOME OTHER CASES THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE S AID CREDITORS. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUDHA LOYALKA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S 69C IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO CREDITORS TOWARDS PURCHASES WHEN SUCH PURCHASES WERE DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SALES MADE AGAINST THOSE PURCHASES WAS NOT DISPUTED. THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ZAZSONS EXPORTS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES AND TR ADING RESULTS HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE AC T MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF NON- VERIFIABILITY OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RITU ANURAG AGARWAL (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE FOR CORRESPONDING PURCHASES AND THE TRADE RESULTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF THE OUTSTANDING SUNDRY CREDITORS RELATED TO PURCHASES. THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN HIS PAPER BOOK ALSO SUPPORT HIS CASE. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN WHOSE CASES THE LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6) WERE EITHER RETURNED UNSERVED OR WERE NOT CO MPLIED WITH AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE LUMPSUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE FREIGHT EXPENSES. ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 8 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE ASSESS EE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT TOTALING TO RS.4,81,500/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND NO EXPLANATION W AS GIVEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80,000/- ON AD HOC BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 11. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT HAS BEEN DOUBTED AND THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THE A UDITORS HAVE ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I FIND SOME MERIT IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. ADMITTEDLY, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITE D U/S 44AB BY THE AUDITORS AND THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE REMARKS. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT AND HAS MERELY MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BILL S AND VOUCHERS. HE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY COMPARABLE CASE WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OTHER THAN STATING THAT THE CLAIM IS HIGHER IN COMPARISON TO OTHER SIM ILAR ASSESSEES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 12. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 9 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- TOWARDS LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHD RAWAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY RS.32,434/- AS WITHDRAWAL F OR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS WIFE HAS ALSO CON TRIBUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,159/- WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 74,593/- IS SUFFICIENT TO MAINT AIN THE FAMILY. HOWEVER, ON A POINTED QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL WAS UNA BLE TO EXPLAIN THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.74,593/- WILL BE S UFFICIENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON AS TO ON WHAT BASIS HE HAS MADE THIS ADDITION OF RS.60,000/-. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60,000/ - ON AD HOC BASIS APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE, I MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO RS.30,000/-. THIS GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2.08.2019. SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 ND AUGUST, 2019 ITA NO.4936/DEL/2018 10 DK COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI