Messe Duesseldorf India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5059/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4172 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJ KUMAR SENIOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 92C; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5059/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) MESSE DUSSELDORF INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 6 (1), 1, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. 2 ND FLOOR, POCKET H & J, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 076. (PAN : AABCC4889E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PIYUSH KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 04.01.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, MESSE DUSSELDORF INDIA PVT. LTD. (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE TAXPAYER) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.09.2010, PASS ED BY THE AO IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. DRP /TPO UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE DRP HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.4,195,482 TO ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF REPRESE NTATION SERVICES SEGMENT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE DRP HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.4,195,482 TO ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF REPRESE NTATION SERVICES SEGMENT WITHOUT ESTABLISHING 'ON MERITS' A NY SORT OF DISCREPANCY IN THE DETAILS / EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BE FORE THE DRP AND THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) IN THE REMAN D PROCEEDINGS TO REBUT THE COMPUTATION OF ALP PURSUAN T TO DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WP (C) NO . 14079/2009 DATED 22.12.09. 3. THAT THE DRP HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,195,482 TO ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP ) OF REPRESENTATION SERVICES SEGMENT WITHOUT FAIRLY AND JUDICIOUSLY DEALING WITH VARIOUS CONTENTIONS AND OBJECTIONS PLA CED BEFORE THE DRP TO REBUT THE COMPUTATION OF ALP OF REPRESENTATI ON SERVICES SEGMENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : THE TAXPAYER IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF ORGANIZING AND PERFORMING TRADE FAIRS, EXHIBITION, SEMINARS, CONGRESSES AND SIMILAR EVENTS AND ALSO ENGAGED IN A DVISING AND DEVELOPING TRADE FAIRS, SEMINARS AND SIMILAR PROJEC TS. THE TAXPAYER IS ALSO INTO THE BUSINESS OF ARRANGING FOR ORDERS I N THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIRS AND EXHIBITION AND PROMOT ING, ORGANIZING INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRADE FAIRS OUTSIDE INDIA. 50% OF THE EQUITY OF THE TAXPAYER IS HELD BY KOELNMESSE INTERNATIONAL GMBH, GERMANY. THE TAXPAYER ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AS UNDER :- ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 3 S. NO. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION METHOD VALUE (IN RS.) 1 REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED - 2669762 2 COLLECTION OF SALE OF ENTRY TICKETS - 4355235 3 REPRESENTATION SERVICES COST PLUS METHOD 8284836 4 SALE OF PACKAGE SPACE & CATALOGUE - 8090451 3. THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) HAS NOT D ISPUTED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE TAXPA YER DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT QUA SALE OF PACKAGE SPACE AND REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED DESCRIBED AT SL.NO.1 & 4 IN THE AFORESAID TABLE, THUS ACCEPTED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) DE TERMINED BY THE TAXPAYER QUA TRANSACTION NO.1 & 4. NOW, THE ON LY DISPUTE IS QUA TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO REPRESENTATION SERVI CES ACTIVITY. THE TAXPAYER IN ITS TP STUDY ADOPTED COST PLUS METHOD ( CPM) IN DETERMINING THE ALP REPRESENTATION SERVICES TRANSAC TION. 4. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE TAXPAYER, THE TAXPAYER S UBMITTED DETAILS MAINTAINED WITH REGARD TO THE REPRESENTATION SERVIC ES SEGMENT DURING THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING AS WELL AS REMAND PR OCEEDING AND THUS ADOPTED COST PLUS METHOD IN DETERMINING ALP RE PRESENTATION SERVICES. TPO FOUND SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT RELIED UPON BY THE TAXPAYER IN THE TRANSFER PRICING REPORT AS MANIPULA TED AND REFUSED ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 4 TO RELY UPON THE SAME TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONA L TRANSACTION ON THE GROUND THAT, THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT ONLY MANAGED TO HIDE THE LOSS AT ENTITY LEVEL BUT ALSO REPORTED PROFIT FROM REPRESENTATION SERVICES BY ARBITRARILY ALLOCATING COST WITHOUT ASS IGNING ANY CREDIBLE REASON OR DATA/DOCUMENTS. TPO ALSO PROPOSED TO DETERMINE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION USING FI NANCIALS AT ENTITY LEVEL AND COMPUTED THE PROFITABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER AT ENTITY LEVEL AND DETERMINE THE ALP QUA REPRESENTATION SERV ICES TRANSACTION. 5. THE TAXPAYER CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. D RP BY FILING OBJECTIONS WHO HAS UPHELD THE PROPOSED ALP OF INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION DETERMINED BY TPO TO THE TUNE OF RS.41, 95,482/-. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE TAXPAYER HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE TPO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TAKEN THE PROFITABILITY O F THE TAXPAYER AT ENTITY LEVEL AND THEN COMPUTED THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF 3 COMPARABLES AS UNDER :- ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 5 THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AT ENTITY LEVEL IS AS UNDER :- CIDEX TRADE FAIRS PRIVATE LIMITED F.Y. 2005 - 06 INCOME REVENUE 29,228,272 TOTAL OP. INCOME 29,228,272 EXPENDITURE PAYMENT TOWARDS SERVICES FOR TRADE FAIRS AND EXHIBITIONS 12,274,858 PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEES 9,524,123 ADMINISTRATIVE SELLING & OTHER EXPENSES 13,192,218 DEPRECIATION 1,634,892 TOTAL OP. EXPENSES (TC) 36,626,091 OPERATING PROFIT (OP) (7,397,819) OP/TC (%) (20.19%) THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF THE THREE COMPARABLES ARE TABU LATED AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/TC (%) 1 IBI CHEMATUR (ENGG. & CONSULTANCY) LTD. 19.01% 2 ICRA ONLINE LIMITED 8.85% 3 L&T RAMBOLL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 14.88% AVERAGE 14.24% 9. THE LD. TPO ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT MARGIN EARNED ON COST BY THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AT 14.24% AND LOSS OF 20.1 9% AT OPERATING LEVEL BY THE TAXPAYER AS COMPARED TO AN A VERAGE PROFIT OF 14.24% OF THE COMPARABLES DETERMINED ALP OF INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION AS UNDER :- ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 6 TOTAL REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE RS.29,228,272(A) TOTAL OPERATING COST OF THE ASSESSEE RS.36,626,091(B) REPRESENTATION SERVICE REVENUE RS.8,284,836 REPRESENTATION SERVICE COST (IN PROPORTION OF A & B) RS.10,381,769 [REVENUE FROM REPRESENTATION SERVICES PLUS ENTRY TICKET SALE) : THIS IS THE TRANSACTION AT TEST. RS.12640071 COST OF REPRESENTATION SERVICES PLUS ENTRY TICKET SALE) THIS IS THE COST BASE RS.14737004 ARMS LENGTH REVENUE AT 14.24% OF ABOVE RS.16835553 REVENUE ACTUALLY REALIZED RS.12640071 ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED RS.4,195,482 ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.4,195,482, THE ARMS LENGTH VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES IS DETERMINED AS UN DER :- S. N O INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BOOK VALUE DIFFERENCE LOADED ARMS LENGTH PRICE DIFFERENCE (%) 1 REPRESENTATIO N SERVICES RENDERED 8284836 2749896 1103473 2 24,92% 2 SALE PROCEEDS OF ENTRY TICKETS 4355235 1445586 5800821 24.92% TOTAL 12640071 4195482 SINCE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE BOOK VALUE AND THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED IS MORE THAN 5% OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRA NSACTION, NO BENEFIT UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LD. AR FOR THE TAXPAYER CONTENDED THAT THE TPO/DRP/AO HAVE ERRED IN CONSIDERING DOMESTIC TRANS ACTION AS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION; THAT THE TPO HAS TAKEN P LI OF ENTITY AS A WHOLE; THAT BENEFIT OF +/- 5% HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE TAXPAYER; THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS ADOPTED THE SCIENTIFIC CRITER IA IN THE ALLOCATION OF COST TOWARDS REPRESENTATION SERVICES SEGMENT BEI NG ESSENTIALLY ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 7 THE PROPORTION OF TIME SPENT BY THE EMPLOYEES AT TH E RESPECTIVE LOCATION ON REPRESENTATION SERVICES SEGMENT; THAT T HE TPO HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) WHEN THE TAXPAYER HAS FOLLOWED ONE OF THE STANDARD METHOD VI Z. CPM IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. TPO/ DRP CONTENDED THAT THE TPO HAS RIGHTLY COMPUTED THE COST BASE REP RESENTATION ACTIVITIES SEPARATELY AND HAS ADDED COLLECTION OF S ALE OF ENTRY TICKETS ON REVENUE SIDE AS WELL AS ON COST SIDE AS THE COLLECTION OF SALE OF ENTRY TICKETS HAS BEEN AGGREGATED WITH THE REPRESENTATION ACTIVITIES; THAT THE TPO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE C PM UNDER THE IDENTICAL SITUATION IN CASE OF THE TAXPAYER IN AY 2 005-06 AND HAS ADOPTED TNMM WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY ITAT IN ITA NO.2139/DEL/2012 DATE 19.03.2014 AGAINST WHICH NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER; THAT THE TPO HAS TAKEN THE PROPORTIONATE COST CULLED OUT OF THE TOTAL COST AND THAT THE TPO AFTER REJECTING THE CPM HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED TNMM WHICH IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD AS PER ORDER OF AY 2005-06; THAT TH E SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED AND THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 8 12. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF EXCLUDING THE DOMESTIC TR ANSACTION FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT TP ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE QUA INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ONLY. TPO, IN THE INSTA NT CASE, HAS COMPUTED COST BASE OF REPRESENTATION ACTIVITIES SEP ARATELY AND HAS ADDED COLLECTION OF SALE OF ENTRY TICKETS ON THE RE VENUE SIDE AS WELL AS ON THE COST SIDE. IN TAXPAYERS OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 DECIDED VIDE ITA NO.2139/DEL/2012 ORDER DATED 19.03 .2014, IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHE REIN, CIT (A)S ORDER DIRECTING TPO TO EXCLUDE DOMESTIC TRANS ACTION IN COMPUTATION WHILE COMPUTING ADJUSTMENT BASED ON ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS UPHELD . SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT FOR TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMEN T ONLY, INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. S INCE THERE IS NO CHANGE OF FACTS ON THIS POINT QUA THE YEAR UNDER AS SESSMENT, TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE DOMESTIC TRANSACTION IN COMPUTI NG ADJUSTMENT BASED ON ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 13. FURTHERMORE, TPO WHILE COMPUTING THE ALP OF INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN AVERAGE OP/TC AT PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) AT 14.24% WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAUS E AS PER WORKING OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES NET MARGIN GIVEN BY THE TAXPAYER, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 194 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IS 11.51%. ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 9 WITHOUT DISPUTING THE WORKING OF THE COMPARABLE COM PANIES AND NET MARGIN GIVEN BY THE TAXPAYER, THE LD. TPO HAS W RONGLY GIVEN THE AVERAGE AT 14.24% WHICH IS INCORRECT. SO, TPO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE CORRECT AVERAGE PLI AS PER WORKING AVAILA BLE AT PAGE 194 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 14. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF REJECTING THE SEGMENTAL A CCOUNT BY TPO BY TAKING PROPORTIONATE COST CULLED OUT OF TOTAL CO ST IS CONCERNED, AFTER A DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.14079/2009 , AVAILABLE AT PAGES 182 TO 187 IN THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THESE OBJECTIONS WERE TAKEN BY THE TAXPA YER BEFORE THE LD. DRP WHO HAS CALLED REMAND REPORT FROM THE TPO, BUT TPO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE SEGMENT AL ACCOUNT PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT ON THE GR OUND THAT IT WAS NOT GIVEN DURING THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. WHEN DI RECTIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT WERE THERE, THE TPO WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 15. EVEN DURING THE ORIGINAL TP PROCEEDINGS, THE TP O HAS NOT DEMANDED ANY SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT NO SUCH SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE TPO DURING ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WHE N WE EXAMINE PARA 1 AT PAGE 9 OF THE TP ORDER, TPO HAS CATEGORIC ALLY MENTIONED ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 10 THAT, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS WITH IDENTIFIABLE COSTS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE BASIS OF SUCH SEGMENTATION IN RESPECT OF THE COST BASE FOR REPRESENTATION SERVICES IS NOT DETERMINABLE . SO, IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HE TAXPAYER IS DIRECTED TO AGAIN PLACE ON RECORD SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT S WITH IDENTIFIABLE COST IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE TAXPAYER TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. TPO. 16. IN SO FAR AS QUESTION OF DENYING THE BENEFIT OF +/- 5% BY APPLYING THE TNMM UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 9 2C (2) BY LD. TPO/DRP IS CONCERNED, THE LD. AR FOR THE TAXPAY ER RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE CITED AS (I) SONY INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 315 ITR (AT) 150; (II) AC IT VS. MSS INDIA (P) LTD.- 123 TTJ 657, (III) M/S. ADOBE SYSTE MS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.5043/DEL/2010 DATED 21.01.2 011 AND M/S. SYMANTEC SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.7894/2010 DATED 31.05.2011. 17. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVE NUE RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IHG IT SERVICES (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 11 (3), NEW DELHI (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 1 (DELHI TRIB.) (SB ) . ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 11 18. SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IHG IT SERVICES (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT, AFTER THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 92C (2) BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2012, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE BENEFIT OF TOLE RANCE MARGIN IS AVAILABLE ONLY WHEN THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 92C(1) AND THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UNDERTA KEN DOES NOT EXCEED THE TOLERANCE MARGIN. ONCE IT EXCEEDS THE T OLERANCE MARGIN, NO BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISO WOULD BE AVAIL ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALP AS DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 92 C(1) SHALL BE CONSIDERED . 19. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TOL ERANCE MARGIN IN THE INSTANCE CASE IS TO BE DETERMINED AFT ER MAKING CORRECT COMPUTATION BY THE TPO, AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDI NG PARAS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN CASE, VARIATION BETWEEN THE ALP AS DETERMINED U/S 92C (1) AND THE PRICE AT WHICH TH E INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UNDERTAKEN EXCEEDS TH E TOLERANCE MARGIN THEN THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFI T OF +/- 5%. THIS EXERCISE IS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE TPO AFTER CORR ECT COMPUTATION BY THE TPO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IHG IT SERVICES (INDIA) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). ITA NO.5059/DEL/2010 12 20. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, IMPUG NED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DRP/TPO/AO IS SET ASIDE AND THE T PO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE TAXPAYER IN VIEW THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED HEREIN B EFORE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (KULDIP SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.