ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Vijay Lata Jain, New Delhi

ITA 5489/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3829 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH V P GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 133(6); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5489 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, ROOM NO. 363, E - 2 BLOCK, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI VS. SMT. VIJAY LATA JAIN, PROP. M/S. DIAMOND EXPORTS, R/O - E - 44, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PAN : ACUPJ6248H ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY S/SH. V.P. GUPTA & NEM SINGH , ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING 15.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.01.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 18, NEW DELHI , [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT - (A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.39,44,014/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,85,32,270/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,66,33,192/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FABRICATION AND EMBROIDERY EXPENSES . 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY/ALL THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE W AS RUNNIN G A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S DIAMOND E XPORTS, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF READY - MADE GARMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/201 1 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,41,72,550/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) ACT WAS ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/03 /2014 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,32,82,030/ - AFTER MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILE D SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED , THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON. IN GROUND NO. 2 , THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 39,44,014/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF RS. 27,80,08,533/ - , WHICH WAS CAPABLE OF EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME IN 3 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO N OTED THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 67,332/ - SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE, HOWEVER , NO EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS OUT OF HER CAPITAL AND INTEREST PAID ON LOANS WERE UTILI Z ED FOR RUNNING OF DAY - TO - DAY BUSINESS OF EXPORTS. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT, SINCE ASSESSEE HERSELF WAS HANDLING ALL THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO INVESTMENT S , INCOME FROM WHICH WAS EXEMPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF HER OWN FUNDS AND NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO MAKING INVESTMENT IN YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE, INVOKED RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX R ULES (FOR SHORT THE RULES ) AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.39, 44, 014/ - . 3.2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDE D THE SATISFACTION AS TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MECHANICALLY APPLIED R ULE 8D FOR COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT DIS - SATISFACTION B EING PREREQUISITE FOR INVOKING RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX R ULES, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON NUMEROUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT. THE LD. CIT - ( A ) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT - ( A ) , AND ACCORDINGLY , SHE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 3.3 BEFO RE US , THE LD. CIT ( DR ) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPRESSED HIS DISSATISFACTION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER CORRECTLY INVOKED RULE 8D OF THE RULES . IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION, SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE D ELHI HIGH 4 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 COURT , IN THE CASE OF INDIABULLS F INANCIAL S ERVICES LTD . VS. DCIT(2016) 76 TAXMANN.COM 268 (DELHI) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 3.4 SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF U TILIZ ATION OF OWN FUNDS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE LD. CIT - ( A ) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES AND WITHOUT ANALYZ ING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 3.5 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 118 AND SUBMIT TED THAT NO DISSATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J O INT I NVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 372 ITR 694 A ND SUBMITTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.67,332/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIABULLS F INANCIAL S ERVICES LTD . (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CARRYING OUT ELABORATE ANALYSIS AND FOLLOWING THE STEPS ENACTED IN THE STATUTE, HAD DETERMINED AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX EXEMPT INCOME, MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT EXPRESSLY RECORDED DISSATISFACTION ABOUT ASSESSEE S CALCULATION, HIS CONCLUSION COULD NOT BE REJECTED . IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS DULY ANALYZED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN P ARA - 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. H E OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY 5 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION T O EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAB ULLS FINANCIAL S ERVIC ES LTD . (SUPRA), THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF INVOKING RULE 8D OF THE R ULES, CANNOT BE REJECTED . 3.6 FURTHER , IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(3) OF THE ACT ALSO , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECT ION 14A(2) AND R ULE 8D OF THE R ULES FOR DETERMINATION OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT NO DISSATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER BEFORE I NVOKING R ULE 8D OF THE R ULES. 3.7 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J OINT I NVESTMENT PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO. 6952/DEL/2014 HAS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WE OBSERVE THAT IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, ADDITION OF RS. 8,76,355/ - WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, TOTAL INVESTME NTS HAVE INCREASED BY RS.5,05,60,000/ - , THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 3,19,443/ - AS EXEMPTED INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE LEARNED AO HAS RESTRICTED TO THE 6 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PRODUCED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 08 - 09 AND 09 - 10 PAGES MA RKED AS ANNEXURE 3 AND 4. THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL'S ORDERS AS CITED SUPRA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE GROUND NO. 1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED OF RS. 3,19,443/ - . 3.8 RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS RESTR ICTED TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 67,332/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. IN GROUND NO. 3 AND 4, THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF RS.4, 85,32,270/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE AND DELETION OF RS. 3,66,33,192/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FABRICATION AND EMBROIDERY EXPENSES. 4.1 THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS HAVE N OT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES . BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RAISED THE ISSUE THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CONFI RMATIONS OF THE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED FOR T HE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) . SHE REFERRED TO PARA - 5 OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT - ( A ) ON PAGE 35 OF THE ORDER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN PR OVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS AND , THUS , IN THE INTEREST OF THE J USTICE , MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONCURRED WITH THE FACT THAT CERTAIN CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) . HE DID NOT OBJECT FOR RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE 7 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT VERIFICATION OF THE PARTIES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE PARTIES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ONLY. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM PARA - 5 OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT - ( A ) ON PAGE 35 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FEW CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED FIRST - TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) AND THE LD. CIT - ( A ) DELETED THE ADDITION RELYING ON THOSE EVIDENCES WITHOUT P ROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 4.4 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT NOTICES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS PRODUCED REMARKS IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES. IT IS SEEN THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM FOUR PARTIES. IN CASE OF THREE PARTIES , NOTICES RETURNED BACK WITH REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT EITHER THE PARTY LEFT OR NO SUCH FIRMS/COMPANIES EXISTED ON THE SAID ADDRESS. ONE PARTY , NAMELY , AGGARWAL TRADING C OMPANY DENIED THE TRANSACTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AS SESSEE FI LED CONFIRMATION FROM FIVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA - 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS GIVEN HIS OBSERVATION IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNTS HIGHLIGHTING T HE PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HER INABILITY TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED FOR VERIFICATION. THE CONFIRMATIONS OF SL. NO. 3,4,5 DOES NOT CONTAIN COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THAT PARTY. FURTHER, CONFIRMATION AT SI. NO. 2 IS FROM AGGRAWAL TRADING CO. 1939/2, KUCHA CHELAN, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI - 06 WHICH IS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR AGGARWAL WITH PAN AGAPA8943N. HOWEVER, EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN 8 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 ADDRESS OF AGGARWAL TRADING CO., 2942, KUCHA MAI DAS, BAZAR SITA RAM, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI - 06 WHICH IS PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH PAN AAAFA4720F WHO HAS DENIED HAVING MADE ANY TRANSACTION TO M/S DIMOND EXPORTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, CONFIRMATIONS FROM SI. NO. 2 - 5 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS UPON HER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN FAILED TO PRODUCE PURCHASE & SALE REGISTER AND STOCK REGISTER, ORIGINAL BILLS, MODE OF TRANSPORT OF GOODS TO THE G ODOWN OF THE ASSESSEE. MERE THE CLAIM THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. IT IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS AND IF SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO SOME OTHER ACCOUNTS OR W ITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK IMMEDIATELY AFTER CREDITING. UNLESS THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE BROUGHT ON RECORDS, IT CANNOT BE EXAMINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF PURCHASES AT THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I.E. ON 2 6 - 02 - 2014 SO AS TO LEAVE VERY LITTLE TIME FOR CONDUCTING ELABORATE ENQUIRIES FROM THE BANKS. 4.5 THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE GOODS WERE ACTUALLY PURCHASED FROM THOSE PARTIES. SIMILAR OBSERVATI ON S HA VE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF FABRICATION AND EMBROIDERY EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.6 WE HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT - ( A ) SUPPORTING THE PURCHASES. THE DOCUMENTS FILED MAINLY CON SIST OF EXTRACT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENT OR COPY OF PAN OR INCOME TAX RETURNS. BUT NO DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING HOW THE GOODS WERE DISPATCHED BY THE SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN FILED. IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, EXAMINATION OF THE FACT AS THE MO DE OF TRANSPORT AND HOW THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE, IS NECESSARY FOR ASCERTAINING 9 ITA NO.5489/DEL/2015 THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES. SIMILAR EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED IN CASE OF FABRICATION AND EMBROIDERY EXPENSES. 4.7 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL J USTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4 , TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER CARRYING OUT INQUIRIES AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CASE . THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO PRODUCE/FURNISH ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SUPPLIERS /FABRICATORS IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 T H JAN . , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 T H JANUARY , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI