VOSSLOH BEEKAY CASTINGS LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5618/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4996 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5618/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. VOSSLOH BEEKAY CASTINGS LTD., UNIT 5, 12 TH FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI PAN :AAACB4091K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 30/06/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI [HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER] PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF TH E LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY SHRI NIKHIL SURANA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI MRITUNJOY BARANAWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 06.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.02.2020 2 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 1. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER (LD TPO) IN NOT CONSIDERING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES FROM THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) AS CLOSELY LINKED TO THE INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF GOODS AND CONSEQUENTLY RE-CHARACTERIZING THE SAID RECEIVABLES AS SHORT TERM LOANS & ADVANCES, THEREBY MAKING A TP ADJUSTMENT OF INR 803,801/- ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUTED I NTEREST. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO 1, THE LD. A O HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE LD. TPO IN BENCHMARKING THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES BY APPLICATION OF CUP METHOD ON THE BASIS OF EXTRANEOUS EXTERNAL C OMPARABLES AND COMPLETELY IGNORING THE AVAILABLE INTERNAL COMP ARABLES. 3. WITH PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS 1 AND 2 ABOVE, THE LD . AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIO N OF THE HONBLE DRP WITH REGARD TO CORRECTION IN COMPUTATION OF NOT IONAL INTEREST AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF SUCH INTEREST BASED ON E RRONEOUS CALCULATION, WHICH IS IN COMPLETE CONTRADICTION OF METHODOLOGY STATED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. TPO. 4. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING AND UNDERSTANDING THE SUBSTANCE OF COM MISSION EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO INR 4,954,459/- PAID TO THIRD PARTY VENDOR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT IN RELA TION TO RAILWAY CONTRACTS AND ARBITRARILY ASSUMING THAT SUCH COMMIS SION HAS BEEN PAID FOR PROCURING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND IS INADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING COMMISSION EXPENSE WITHOUT GIVING DUE C ONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID EXPENSE WAS ALLOWED IN TH E PRECEDING YEARS AFTER DULY RECORDING 'STATEMENT ON OATH FROM THE THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO WHOM SUCH COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF CAST MANGANESE STEEL CR OSSING FOR RAIL TRACKS AND OTHER ENGINEERING PRODUCTS TO CATER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STEEL INDUSTRIES, POWER-PLANT, MINING CEMENT AND OTHER PLANTS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES. THE ASSESS EE FILED RETURN 3 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30/11 /2013, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 11,94,37,330/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUE D AND COMPLIED WITH. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES(AES) AND REFERRED T HE MATTER FOR BENCHMARKING OF THOSE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO). THE INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND BY THE LD. TPO A T ARMS LENGTH, HOWEVER, HE OBSERVED THAT PAYMENTS FOR INVO ICES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS AES WERE NOT RECEIVED WITHIN TH E STIPULATED PERIOD AS PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH TH E AE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. TPO, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO CHARGE INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES DUE FROM THE AE. AFTER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE, HE BENCHMARKED THE TRANSACTION OF INT EREST RECEIVABLE FROM THE AE APPLYING CUP METHOD AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND ADOPTED INTEREST RATE AS 6 MONTHS LIBOR RATE + 400 BASIS POINT. THE LD. TPO COMPUTED THE BENCHMARKING RATE OF THE INTEREST AT 4.4569% AND WORKED OUT THE INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES IN RESPECT OF THE THREE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AT 8,03,801/-. HE, ACCORDINGLY, PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF 8,03,801/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, INCLUDED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25/12/2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PROPOSED DIS ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF 49,54,459/- IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED 4 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 OBJECTION BEFORE THE LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ( DRP). THE LD. DRP, DISMISSED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES, HOWEVER, AS RE GARD TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, AFTER TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION ERRORS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CALCULATION OF T HE INTEREST, DIRECTED THE LD. TPO TO RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST LIA BILITY. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE IMPUGNED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30/06/2017 AND AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS/DISALLO WANCE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL, LD. TPO GAVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. DRP AND IN HIS O RDER DATED 31/01/2018, HE RECOMPUTED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJU STMENT OF THE INTEREST TO 3,70,867/-. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 164 AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS A DEBT FREE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS BECHTEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (IT APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2016 DATED 21/07/2016), THERE WAS NO REQUIRE MENT OF MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIVABLES . THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO BALANCE-SHEET OF THE CO MPANY AVAILABLE ON PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER-BOOK TO SUPPORT TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DEBT FREE COMPANY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 19 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INTEREST EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 3.1 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHA RGED BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES WITH REGARD TO THE RECEI VABLES FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THEY WOULD HAVE CHARGED INTEREST ON THE RECEIVABLE, ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PAI D MORE INTEREST AND THEREFORE CHARGING OF THE INTEREST WOULD HAVE B EEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LE ARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 104 OF THE PAPER-BOOK WHICH CONTAI NED THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST OF 8,93,453/- WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, HAD THE ASS OCIATED ENTERPRISES CHARGED THE INTEREST ON RECEIVABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUTSTANDING PAYMENT IN THE FORM OF T HE RECEIVABLES WERE ALSO DUE FROM THE NON-ASSOCIATED E NTERPRISES AND NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH RECEIVABLES AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INDO-AMERICAN JEWELLERY LTD. IN ITA NO. 5872/MUM/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, NO ADJUS TMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 3.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT TRANSAC TION IN DISPUTE IS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, LEARNED TPO JUSTIFIED IN BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTION. HE RELIED ON THE VARI OUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT REFERRED BY THE LEARNED TPO IN HIS OR DER. THE LEARNED DR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF CHEIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITA NO. 1230/DEL/ 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 3.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISIONS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT 6 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BECHTEL IND IA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS A DE BT FREE COMPANY THE QUESTION OF RECEIVING ANY INTEREST ON R ECEIVABLE DID NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEBT FREE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE BINDING PRECEDENTS, T HE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST RECEI VABLES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ARE RENDERED MERELY ACADEMIC AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT GIVING OUR FINDING IN RESPE CT OF THOSE ARGUMENTS. THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOU NT OF THE RECEIVABLES IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. THE GROUND NOS. 4 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF 49,54,459/-. 4.1 THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE THAT THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF 49,54,459/-, WHICH WERE PAID TO MR. D.N. PANDEY AND HIS PROPRIETARY FIRM M/S. NE W GLOBAL IMPEX. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF PROJECT-WISE C OMMISSION PAID ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO MR. D.N. PANDE Y FOR PROCURING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS OF INDIAN RAILWAYS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE RENDER ED BY MR. PANDY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS LIKE 7 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 PROJECT REPORTS, EMAIL, CORRESPONDENCE ETC., HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FEW EMAIL INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND SH. PANDEY, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RE NDERED BY HIM. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT AS P ER THE AUTHORITIES ISSUING THE TENDER, THERE WAS NO REQUIR EMENT OF ANY COMMISSION AGENT AND IF SO REQUIRED THE GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED PERSONS WERE ONLY ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS AGENT FOR REND ERING THE SERVICES, WHICH WAS NOT THE SITUATION IN THE INSTAN T CASE. 4.2 THE LEARNED AO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STANDIPACK (P) L TD VS CIT (2012) 211 TAXMANN 144 (CALCUTTA), WHEREIN IT IS HE LD THAT EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COMMISSION PAID FOR PROVIDING E XPERTISE TO APPLY FOR TENDER AND FOLLOW UP ACTION FOR ACCEPTANC E OF TENDER, BEING FROM OFFICER IMPERMISSIBLY LAW, IS NOT ALLOWA BLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 4.3 BEFORE THE LEARNED DRP, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ACTUALLY SERVICE CHARGES WERE PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY MR. D.N. PANDEY. THE LEARNED DRP, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT AS PER TITLE OF THE AGREEMENT MR. PANDEY WAS LIASION AGENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DRP FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A LUMP-SUM PAYMEN T WAS MADE, WHICH WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON ACTUAL EFFORTS OR EXPENDITURE OF THE AGENT. THE LEARNED DRP ALSO CONCURRED WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT COMMISSION WAS NOT PAYABLE ON GOVERNME NT CONTRACT AND SCOPE THE WORK MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT CLEAR LY INDICATED THAT WORK WAS NOT OF THE LEGAL NATURE. AS NO FURTHE R DOCUMENTARY 8 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 EVIDENCE WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM, THE LEARNED DRP UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4.4 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REF ERRED TO AGREEMENT DATED 06/09/2004, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAI LABLE ON PAGE 136 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY HI M AS A MASTER AGREEMENT. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO AGREEMENT DATED 15/07/2012 IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 141 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CONIMETERS ELECTRIC ALS (P) LTD IN ITA 1401 OF 2008 TO SUPPORT THAT SERVICE CHARGES IN CURRED IN RELATION TO TENDER WORK OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITI ES IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNER CONSUL SUBMITT ED THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT ON EARLIER Y EARS. 4.5 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OT HER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT MR. D.N. PANDEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RAILWAY AND NO OTHER QUALIFICATION OR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OF MR. P ANDEY IN THE FIELD OF THE WORK OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH C OMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS HAVE ALSO BEEN DISALLOWED. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE OF ANY SERVICES RENDERED BY MR. D.N. PANDEY HAS BEEN PRODU CED, WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT MR. PANDEY INTERACTED WITH RAI LWAY OFFICIAL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO CONTRACT FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED COMMISSION EXPENSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PRINTED ON THE PLANE PAPER AND O NLY SIGNED 9 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 AT THE LAST PAGE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AGREEMENT H AS NOT BEEN REGISTERED OR SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY, WHICH RAISE S DOUBTS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AGREEMENT. 4.6 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT T HAT MR. PANDEY PROVIDED ANY KIND OF SERVICES TO THE ASSESSE E. MERELY PROVIDING SOME EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN HIM AND THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THAT MR. PANDEY PROVIDED ANY KIND OF SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE CONTRACTS FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN PAID COMMISSION EXPENSES. FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF T HE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHETH ER SIMILAR COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN CASE OF THE CONTRACT S RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE PARTIES, HE CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT NO S UCH COMMISSION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR EXECUTING THE CONTRACT OF THE PRIVATE PARTIES. THIS FACT ALSO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE COMMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY FOR PROCURING CO NTRACTS FROM THE RAILWAY AND SUCH KIND OF COMMISSION FOR PROCURI NG CONTRACTS FROM GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE GOVER NMENT RULES. IN VIEW OF NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE SERVICE RENDERED BY MR. PANDEY, THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD. IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE U PHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE. THE GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10 ITA NO. 5618/DEL./2017 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. RK/-(D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI