Integrated Database& Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5211/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4008 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH GUPTA
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH C DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM & SHRI K. D. RANJAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. M/S. INTEGRATED DATA BASE & RESEARCH CENTRE P. LTD. , THE ASSESSING OFFICER, F12, 2 ND FLOOR, VIJAY CHOWK, VS. W A R D : 11 (4), LAXMI NAGAR, D E L H I 110 092. N E W D E L H I. P A N / G I R NO. AAA CI 2994 Q. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBODH GUPTA, C. A.; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D.R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)VIII, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ACTED ARBITRAR ILY IN HASTE AND HAVE FAILED TO FULLY APPRECIATE THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, DOCUMENT S AND EVIDENCES AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON RECORD; 2. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED WI TH PRE-DETERMINED MIND SET AND DRAWN CONCLUSIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON CO NJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT APPRECIATING FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT THE AUTHE NTICITY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES; 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . 3. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BOTH HAVE DENIED T HE APPELLANT, THE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY NOT SHARING THE INFORMATION RECEI VED / COLLECTED BY THE TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND USED AGA INST IT IN A SECRETIVE MANNER AND THUS THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE H AVE BEEN INFRINGED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE IS RELIABLE UNLESS SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH ARE USED AGAINST HIM; 4. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HIMSELF HAS FAILED TO PROVE WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT IMPUGNED AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 7 LA CS RECEIVED FROM BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD. AS SHARE CAPITAL, REPRESENTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCES KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS PV T. LTD. AND DIVINE LEASING; 5. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED AND WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN ARBITRARILY CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTIT Y AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.7 L ACS WAS OBTAINED, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENT WAS CARRYING HANDY ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION, AS APPARENT FROM THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSEL F. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO CAST ANY REASON, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE IN THIS REGARD, AS TO WHY SUCH TRANSACTION WAS BEING TREATED AS BOGUS; 6. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY LOWER AU THORITIES WITHOUT REJECTING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, INCOME TAX RETURNS, BANK STATEMENTS, PARTICUL ARS OF CHEQUE AND BANK ACCOUNT, SHARE ALLOTMENT FORM, SHARE CERTIFICATES E TC. AND OR WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE FALSE OR UN-TRUE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO ADDI TION OF RS.7,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD. AS SHARE CAPITAL, TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE FACTS O F THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 4/10/2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.9,490/- W AS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 10/02/2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF DIT [INVESTIGATION] THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MON EY IN ITS BOOKS WITHOUT PAYING TAX WITH THE HELP OF ENTRY OPERATORS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.3,00,000/- FROM M/S. BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND RS.4,00,000/- FROM M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONST RUCTION PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 5/03/2007. 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . 4. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 4/10/2004 SHOULD BE TREATED A RETURN FILE D IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOTTED 400 EQUITY SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS.100/- TO M/S. RI GHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AT PREMIUM OF RS.900/-. 300 SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS.100/- AT PREMIUM OF RS.900/- WERE ALLOTTED TO M/S. BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED C OPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS OF M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BASANT AGEN CIES PVT. LTD. THE AO IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACTS ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT T O M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. TO PRODUCE / FUR NISH DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF IDENTIFICATION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD, DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, COPIES OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003- 04 ALONG WITH FILING OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS FOR AYS 2004-05 AND 2006-07 AND COPY OF FORM NO. 18 FILED WITH ROC REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS. M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. STATED THAT DUE TO SOME PERSONAL AND DOMESTIC PROBLEMS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND OFFICE PERSONALLY AND BANK STATEMENT FOR FY 2003- 04 WAS NOT TRACEABLE. SIMILAR WAS THE CASE OF OTHER PARTY. SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTIO N 131 IN TOTO, SUMMONS WERE AGAIN ISSUED, WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS TH AT NO SUCH PARTY AT THIS ADDRESS. THEREAFTER THE AO DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO MAKE NEC ESSARY ENQUIRIES ABOUT THESE TWO COMPANIES AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. IT WAS REPORTED BY THE INS PECTOR THAT THE SAID FLAT BEARING NO G-8/94, SECTOR : 15, ROHINI WAS OCCUPIED BY A FAMILY FOR TH E LAST TWO/THREE YEARS. IT WAS INFORMED BY THE OCCUPANTS THAT THEY WERE NEITHER ASSOCIATED WITH TH ESE COMPANIES NOR KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE COMPANIES. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT SHRI VINOD GA RG AND SHRI N. K. GARG DID NOT LIVE THERE. THE AO ALSO OBTAINED BANK STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE CO MPANIES FROM STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR. FROM PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S. BASANT AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. L TD. WERE CREDITED BY CASH DEPOSIT ON THE SAME DAY OR THE DAY EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHEQUE S WERE ISSUED. FROM THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE IDENTITY, CRED ITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PROVED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY A DDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000/-. 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO IT TO REBUT EVIDENCE / INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY INVESTIGATION WING AND THE A O. THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED THE AO TO PROVIDE COPY OF REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGAT ION WING AND THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR SUBMITTED BY HIM AFTER VISITING THE PLACES OF SHARE APPLICANTS, NAMELY, M/S. RIGHT CHOICE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BASANT AGENCIES PVT . LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANI ES BEFORE THE AO SO AS TO FACILITATE CROSS EXAMINATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE REPORT OF THE INV ESTIGATION WING AND THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETT ER DATED 7/07/2010 INFORMED THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GETTING CO-OPERATION FROM THE AO AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT DEEMED NECESSARY TO MAKE EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) ASKED THE REPORT FROM THE AO AS TO WHY DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE AO IN HIS REPORT DATED 4/08/2010 REBUTTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INFORMED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT HE HAD SENT TWO LETTERS DATED 16/07/201 0 AND 22 ND JULY, 2010, WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON ON SUC H ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 6/09/2010 STRONGLY OPPOSED AND DENIED THE CON TENTION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE ADDRESS. IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS OBLIGATION BY FILING COPY OF SHA RE CERTIFICATE, COPY OF INCOME-TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND THE COPIES OF THE AUDITED ACCO UNTS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE SHARE APPLICANTS. IT HAD ALSO FILED PROOF SUGGESTING THAT BOTH THE CO MPANIES WERE STILL ACTIVE AND WORKING AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF FACTUAL POSITION. THE LD. CIT (A) ON CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE FACTS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT MONEY IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES, IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FACT / MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR THAT THE SAID COMPANIES WERE NOT IN EXIST ENCE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY AND UNDER W HAT CIRCUMSTANCES THESE COMPANIES WERE UNDER BEING INVESTIGATION BY OTHER GOVT. AUTHORITIE S INCLUDING DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS AND THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. FURTHER I N THIS CASH DEPOSITS HAD BEEN MADE IN ACCOUNTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . CIT (A) IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE ACTED IN A MORE RESPONSIBLE MANNER, PARTICULARLY WH EN, THE DEPARTMENT HAD REBUTTED / DISPROVED THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE IDENTITY / EXISTENCE AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. AS REGARDS THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS LTD RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRE SENT CASE. SINCE BOTH THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS; THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE NAMES OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS IMMEDIATELY BEFOR E ISSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; AND FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO REBUT THE RE SULT OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND WARD INSPECTOR, LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE DEPOSIT OF RS.7,00,000/-. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED WITH PRE-DECIDED MIND-SET AND DRAWN CONCL USIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT APPRECIATING FOR T HEMSELVES ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN AND INFORMATION RECEIVED / COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE HAVE BEEN INFRINGED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED FORM NO. 2 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT SHARES HAD BEEN ALLOTTED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). IT HAS BEEN SU BMITTED THAT SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED AT PREMIUM OF RS.900/- FOR WHICH THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA TION. SHE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PLEADING BEFORE HIM THAT THE AO H AS NOT BEEN CO-OPERATIVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO HAD DENIED THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST HIM IN HIS REMAND REPORT, SENT TO THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR AND THE AO AS WELL AS THE 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY THE AO HA D CONCLUDED THAT THE IDENTITY, THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EX PLAIN AS TO WHY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE INVESTOR COMPANIES ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY TH E GOVT. AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS AND CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGAT ION. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004 I.E. RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS ALSO ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PROFESSION FEES OF RS.5,000/- AND COMMISSION RECEIVED AT RS.2,40,000/- AND PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS AT RS.10,055/- TOTALING TO RS.2,55,055/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003. AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004, THE PROFESSIONAL FEE RECEIPTS ARE AT RS.2,28, 500/- AND INTEREST FROM LOAN IS RS.39,590/- TOTALING TO RS.2,68,090/-. THE PROFIT BEFORE TAX F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS AT RS.13,469/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS AT RS.16,588/-. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE BALANCE SHEETS AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003 AND 31 ST MARCH, 2004. THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003 WAS RS.2,00,000/- AND AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004 AT RS.7,00,000/-. THE ISSUED CAPITAL AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003 IS AT RS.1,02,000/- AND AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004 IS AT RS.5,27,000/-. RESERVES AND SUR PLUSES INCLUDE SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS.38,25,000/-. AS PER SCHEDULE B THE INVESTMENT IN UN- QUOTED SHARES AS ON 31ST MARCH, 2004 IS AT RS.33,00 ,000/-. CASH AND BANK BALANCE AT RS.57,583/- ; LOANS AND ADVANCES RS.10,10,335/- INCLUDING TDS O F RS.28,881/- AND CURRENT LIABILITIES AT RS.10,857/-. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE FINANCIAL P OSITION OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ASCERTAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED SHARES AT PREMIUM OF RS.900/- P ER SHARE AS AGAINST FACE VALUE OF RS.100/-. THE AO HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT CAN RECEIVE SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.900/- ON THE BASIS OF FINANCIAL POSITION STATED AS ABOVE. THE SHARE PREMIUM COLLECTED HAS BEEN MAINLY INVESTED IN UNQUOTED SHAR ES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE BY WHICH THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL W AS RAISED FROM RS.2,00,000/- TO RS.7,00,000/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO COUL D NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW SHARE PREMIUM WAS COLLECTED 9 TIMES OF THE FACE VALUE WHE N EARNING PER SHARE FACE VALUE OF SHARE OF RS.100/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2004 IS NOMINAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT S, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE CAN RECEIVE SHARE PREMIUM OF RS 90 0. HE WILL CONDUCT INQUIRIES FROM ROC IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 7 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5211 (DEL) OF 2010 . ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPER ATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN GETTING THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DE CIDE THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING ACCOUNT ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND FRAME ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER CONDUCTING FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND EXAMINING THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 20 TH MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ I. P. BANSAL ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH MAY, 2011. *MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR, ITAT.