Beautex (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5592/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 559220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law
• Section: 142(1); 260A; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 5592/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2005 - 06 ) BEAUTEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD., E - 163, PANDAV NAGAR, SAMASPUR ROAD, DELHI. PAN - AAACB3386P (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VED JAIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY MS . Y. KAKKAR, DR ORDER PER SMT. DIVA SINGH, J.M. BY THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2012 OF CIT(A) - V, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2005 - 06 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT(A)) IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,14,087/ - LEVIED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY DESPITE THE ASSESSEE BRINING ALL MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO PROVE THE IDENTI F Y OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. DATE OF HEARING 19.05 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .07.2015 2 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN IGNORING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AS THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED ALL FACTS IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS SUCH THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT NOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS UNTENABLE AS NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN ON MERIT REGARDING CONCEALMENT IN THE P ENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT O F ITS CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE AO LEVYING PENALTY IS UNTENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARED A NIL INCOME BY FILING ITS RETURN ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A), THE SAID RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTI ONNAIRE ETC. THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE AO AT AN INCOME OF RS.27,48,000/ - A FTER TAKING THE ASSESSEE S RESPONSE INTO CONSIDE RATION BY AN ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3(3) , AS A RESULT OF ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKH MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION MON EY ; RS. 1,80,612/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES @ 30% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES ; AND RS. 17,308/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES. 3. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN PARTIAL RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HOWE VER ON A CHALLENGE FURTHER BY THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE HON BL E HIGH COURT, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. 3 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 3.1 . A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AS A RESULT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,48,000/ - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE AO CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT WAS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS TO RS. 25,50,000/ - AS THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FORM ENTRY PROVIDERS. FUR THER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DELIBERATELY DEBITED THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,308/ - IN PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH EXPENSES WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY CONCEALED THE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 25,67,308/ - . (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 3. 2. AS A RESULT OF THIS PENALTY OF RS. 10,14,087/ - WAS IMPOSED . T HE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION UNSUCCESSFULLY BEFOR E THE CIT(A) . A GGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE FACTS SUBMI T T ED THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,50,000/ - MADE BY THE AO THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS AS A RESULT THE ADDITION SURVIVING WAS ONLY RS. 22,50,000/ - . HOWEVER, WHILE UPHOLDING THE PENALTY ORDER NECESSARY RELIEF QUA THIS FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED. APART FROM THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,692/ - IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. ACCORD INGLY IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED. IN THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS ARGUED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, I T CANNOT BE SAID TO AMOUNTING TO CONCEALMEN T HAVING BEEN MADE OUT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND THE ISSUE IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INDEPENDEN TLY CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT FOR NOT PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 4 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 4. LD. SR. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FILED THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011, WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN DISMISSED (2012) 18 TAXMANN.COM 9 (DEL.) IN THE CASE OF BE A UTEX INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT . R E FERRING TO THE SAID JUDGMENT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM HAS BEEN HELD TO BE BOGUS RIGHT UP TO THE HON BLE HIGH COURT. REFERRING TO THE PENALTY ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED. SIMILARLY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONLY GE NERAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED AND SAME IS THE POSITION EVEN BEFORE IN ITAT. ACCORDINGLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS H ER SUBMISSION THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN BOOKS ARE NEVER PRODUCED OCCASION TO FAULT THE REVENUE FOR NOT POINTING OUT SPECIFIC DEFECTS THEREIN DOES NOT ARISE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW CITED BY THE LD. AR NAMELY THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT; THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ARE WEL L - SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION AND HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION . SIMILARLY TH E ARGUMENT TH AT NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHERE BOOKS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WERE NOT PRODUCED HAS ALSO BEE N CONSIDERED IN THE BACK DROP WHERE IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE BOOKS WERE NEVER PRODUCED AND NO PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED TILL DATE THAT THEY CAN BE PRODUCED. HOWEVER IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THESE GENERAL PROPOSITIONS OF LAW NO DOUBT W ELL SETTLED DO NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN SUMMED UP BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN PARAS 2 TO 5 IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 27,40,600/ - FROM EIGHT PERSONS. OUT OF THE ABOVE, DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION, ONLY A SUM OF RS. 22,50,000/ - WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) 5 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 INITIATED ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SHAREHOLDERS AND SENT SUMMONS TO SHRI AMIT GUPTA, SHRI SURENDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SHRI MOOLCHAND NIRMAL AND SHRI YOGESH SAXENA. THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI AMIT GUPTA AND SHRI SURENDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA WERE RETUR NED BACK WITH THE REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS AND NO SUCH PERSONS RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER, IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI MOOLCHAND NIRMAL AND SHRI YOGESH SAXENA BOTH APPEARED ON DATED 05.12.2006 AND 29.01.2007 RESPECTIVELY AND THEIR STATEMENTS WER E RECORDED BY THE AO. THEY DENIED INVESTING ANY AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HOWEVER, IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 02.02.2007, REQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS TO SECURE THEIR ATTENDANCE. F URTHER, THE AO MADE ENQUIRIES AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF MR. AGARWAL WITH ABN AMRO BANK, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. THE AO ON 28.02.2007 ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH THE STATEMENTS OF SH. MOOLCHAND NIRMAL AND SHRI YOGESH SAXENA TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.04.2007 WHERE CONFIRMATIONS, RECEIPT OF FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS, AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AFORESAID REPLIES/ DOCUMENTS, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,50,000/ - TOWARDS ADDITION IN SHARE CAPITAL DURING THE YEAR AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.04.2007. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WH EREIN THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL WHICH WAS FOUND CREDITED DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND THE SHARE CAPITAL WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE IMPU GNED YEAR. 4. THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED MISC. APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS AGAIN DISMISSED ON 5.3.2010. 5. STILL DISSATISFIED, THE APPELLANT PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE ACT. (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 5.1 . CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WAS PLEA SED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 6. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE THREE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY ALL THE 6 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION RELATIN G TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS BOGUS AND IN FACT, THESE PERSONS HAD NEVER INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE S COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS PUT ON HIM TO PROVE THE CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED ITS SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY FOR VERIFICATION AND, THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THESE SHAREHOLDERS WAS NOT PROVED. TWO PERSONS, VIZ., MR. YOGESH SAXENA AND MR. MOOLCHAND NIRMAL, WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE AO HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE STATEMENT DENIED THAT THEY HAD MADE ANY INVESTMENT WITH THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. FURTHER FINDING WHICH IS RECORDED BY ALL THE THREE AUTHORITIE S THAT THE MONEY HAD NOT COME FROM THEIR ACCOUNTS. IN FACT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THOSE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS BELONGING TO ONE MR. AGGARWAL, MR. YOGESH SAXENA EVEN STATED THA T HIS SIGNATURES ON CONFIRM ATI ON AS WELL AS ON AFFIDAVIT WERE FORGED. AS PER THE BANK REPORTS, THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE RECEIVED FROM MR. AGGARWAL THROUGH HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND THUS, TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. THESE ARE ALL FINDINGS OF FACT ACCORDED BY ALL THE THREE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FACED WITH THESE FINDINGS, THE ONLY CONTENTION WHICH COULD BE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WAS THAT SHRI MOOLCHAND NIRMAL AND MR. YOGESH SAXENA WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED BY THE APPELLANT EVEN WHEN SPECIFIC OP PORTUNITIES WERE SOUGHT FOR. WE MAY NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT HAD CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH CROSS EXAMINATION WAS SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THIS WAS FACTUALLY WRONG OBSERVAT IONS, AS VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.2.2007, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR SUMMONING THE INVESTORS U/S 131 OF THE ACT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, WE HAD CALLED FOR THE ORIGINAL RECORDS VIDE OUR ORDERS DATED 3.8.2011. THOSE RECO RDS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME. FROM THE ORDER SHEET RECORDED BY THE AO ON VARIOUS DATES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF TWO PERSONS, BUT HE NEVER ASKED FOR FRESH CROSS EXAMINATION. WHEN W E GO THROUGH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.2.2007 ALONG WITH THE ORDER SHEET AND READ THE SAID COMMUNICATION IN THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 8. WE, THUS, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. (EMPHASIS PROVIDED) 7 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 5.2 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING OF FACTS REMAINING UNADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THE GENERAL ARGUMENTS ON VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS OF LAW WI THOUT PLACING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY TO REBUT THE CONSISTENT FINDINGS OF 3 SEPARATE FORUMS UPHELD BY THE CATEGORIC FINDINGS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE CLAIM WAS BOGUS . WE FIND OURSELVES UNABLE TO SEE HOW THE GENERAL PR O POSITION S CANVASSED ADDRESSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER CAN BE OF ANY HELP TO CONSTRUE THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS WRONGLY IMPOSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PLEADINGS BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE ARGUM ENTS ADVANCED THE ONLY CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY HAVE SOME FORCE IS THAT THE RELIEF ON QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED AS ADMITTEDLY THE LD. CIT(A) ON FACTS HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AT THE STAGE OF THE CIT(A), RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3 LAKH AND IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT THE SAID RELIEF HAS NOT BEEN VARIED TILL DATE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT IT HAS BEEN CANVASSED THAT THE ISS U E OF EXPENSES FOR BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RESTORE D BY THE ITAT TO THE AO. BOTH THE LD. SR. DR AND THE LD. AR HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES ALSO COME UP IN A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ALSO BEFORE THE I T A T . ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAID LIMITED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 T H JULY, 2015 S D / - S D / - (J.S. REDDY) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 5 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 5 * KAVITA /AMIT KUMAR* 8 ITA NO. 5592/DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI