DCIT VI, Lucknow V. M/s Sahara Bakers Pvt. Ltd., Faizabad

ITA 563/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 56323714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.563/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. VS. M/S SAHARA BAKERS PVT. LTD., 15A, UPLABDHI, GOPAL NAGAR, KRISHNA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. AAECS5078G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.65/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.563/LKW/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 M/S SAHARA BAKERS PVT. LTD., 15A, UPLABDHI, GOPAL NAGAR, KRISHNA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. AAECS5078G VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 15/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 09/08/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE 'CIT(A)' HAVING FOUND AND ACCEPTED THAT; 2 ( A ) INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 WAS SOLELY BASED ON THE OBJECTION OF REVENUE AUDIT PARTY; ( B ) IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY REVENUE AUDIT PARTY, ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED; AND ( C ) ON AN EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT ALLEGED DISCREPANCY IN JOB RECEIPT S STOOD FULLY RECONCILED, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. BECAUSE THE 'CIT(A)' HAS UPHELD INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ON WRONGFUL CONSIDERATION AND GROUNDS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN FORCE A ND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 DESERVE TO BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THIS REGARD, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 23/11/2009, POINTING OUT CERTAIN AUDIT OBJECTIONS IS AVAILABLE ON P AGE NO. 50 TO 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THIS LETTER VIDE LETTER DATED 24/02/2010 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 54 AND 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148 ON 17/03/2010 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE N O. 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK. R EGARDING THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID AND HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: (I) INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (II) CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (OSD) [2013] 355 ITR 393 (GUJ) 3 4. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE REOPENING IS ON THE BASIS OF MERE OBJECTION OF THE AUDIT PARTY BECAUSE WE FIND THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY HAS BEEN CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23/11/2009 AND IN REPLY , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 24/02/2010. AFTER APPLYING MIND ON SUCH AUDIT OBJECTION AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING ON 17/03/2010 AND THEREAFTER , HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 17/03/2010. THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AFTER RECEIVING OF AUDIT OBJECTIONS , THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND MADE ENQUIRY AND WHEN HE FOUND THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THEN ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED BY NOW THAT AT THE STA G E OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148, PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED THAT SOME INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT ABOUT THE ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME AT THAT STAGE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THIS LEGAL POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT U/S 14 3(3) AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(1) ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O F INCOME - TAX VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK 4 BROKERS P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5.1 REGARDING THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HI S CONTENTION, NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS ARE APPLICABLE. REGARDING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS WITH REGARD TO INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EARLIER PERIOD BEFORE AMENDMENT U/S 147 I.E. 1961 TO 1963. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 DURING THAT PERIOD IS ALSO REPRODUCED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID JUDGMENT AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE ALSO REPRODUCE THE SAME HER EUNDER: SECTION - 147 IF (A) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, BY REASON OF THE OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF AN ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR, OR (B) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO OMISSION OR FAILURE AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSE SS SUCH INCOME OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED 5.2.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 B , IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT , THERE WERE TWO REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED. THE FIRST WAS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO OMISSION OR FAILURE AS 5 MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 147 ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND REQUIREMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE INFORMATION IN H IS POSSESSION FOR FORMING REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAS CHANGED AND MOREOVER, SINCE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 147 IS NOT APPLICABLE , THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO FULFILL IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THERE WAS OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PERMITTING REOPENING. BECAUSE OF SUCH CHANGE IN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND DIFFERENCE IN FACTS, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.3 THE SECOND JUDGME NT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (OSD) (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE , THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING WAS ISSUED AFTER 4 YEARS AN D IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY WERE CONSIDERED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. EVEN UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT MERE OPI NION OF THE AUDIT PARTY CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE CLOSED ASSESSMENT AND THAT TOO BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THAT CASE , EVEN DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT , THE OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY AUDI T PARTY AND AFTER THE AUDIT PARTY BROUGHT THESE OBJECTIONS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION CONCL UDING THAT IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS CIRCULAR, TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE O NLY INTIMATION WAS ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. BECAUSE OF THES E DIFFERENCES IN THE FACTS, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6 6. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO.563/LKW/201 1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,49,58,500/ - IN THE GROSS RECEI PTS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND ACTUAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE RS.6,45,84,503/ - AND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THIS AMOUNT ONLY. IN THE P/L ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING EXPENSES AND VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES. NO OTHER EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS THEY ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE EXPENSES ALLOWABLE AGAINST RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES MAY BE RESTRICTED TO EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THIS YEAR ONLY AND EARLIER YEARS EXPENSES MAY BE DISALLOWED AS THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 4. APPELLANT CRAVE LEAV ES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS, AS STATED ABOVE, AS AND WHEN NEED TO DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE COURT. 8. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 5(4)(III) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,58,910/ - HAS BEEN REIMBURSED ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PBPL. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT PRO VIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS ALSO ON THE AMOUNTS REIMBURSED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT WITH PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD. (PBPL) DATED 17/11/2003 7 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 7 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN PARTICULAR , OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 15 & 16 WHERE THE RELEVANT CLAUSE OF AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE WHICH PROVIDES THAT EXCISE PAYMENTS MADE BY SAHARA ON BEHALF OF PBPL ON WEEKLY/FORTNIGHTLY/MONTHLY BASIS AND TDS WILL BE DONE BY PBPL FOR ALL SUCH SUMS PAID AND FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR EXCISE PURPOSES. 9. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION BECAUSE HE HAS NOT GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH WERE OMITTED FROM THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHETHER THE SAID REIMBURSEMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE EXPENSES OR NOT IS TO BE EXAMINED. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 6 & 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED EXCISE DUTY ON BEHALF OF PBPL AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,92,38,622/ - H AS BEEN REIMBURSED BY PBPL TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.80,98,244/ - REPRESENTS THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIGHT DIESEL OIL BY PBPL TO THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILARLY HE HAS NOTED CERTAIN OTHER AMOUNTS REGARDING INCREASE IN VARIOUS EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE SAID TO BE REIMBURSEMENT BY PBPL TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH REIMBURSED AMOUNT TOTALING TO RS.2,49,58,910/ - WHICH INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE BUT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED ONLY NET AMOUNT OF RS.3,96,25,493/ - AFTER DEDUCTING THIS REIMBURSED AMOUNT FROM THE GROSS RECEIPT AMOUNT. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,58,910/ - HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH DIFFERENT LEDGER ACCOUNTS, WHICH REPRESENTS TRANSACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PBPL WHICH ARE REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY HIM THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,58,910/ - HAS NOT BEEN 8 ALREADY DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK OF 155 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES MANUFACTURING, TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALSO WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 117 OF THE PAPER BOOK BUT THE SCHEDULES 1 TO 5, AS MENTIONED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BO OK. THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE ALSO NOT AVAILABLE FROM WHICH IT CAN BE FOUND OUT THAT SUCH DEBIT IS AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED BY PBPL. FIRST OF ALL , THIS HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT IS SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL EXPENDITURE OR NOT BECAUSE IF NO EXPENDITURE IS IN FACT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT REIMBURSEMENT HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON SOME HYPOTHETICAL BASIS THEN EVEN IF IT IS A REIMBURSEMENT BU T IT AMOUNTS TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, EVEN IF THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS REIMBURSED BY THE CUSTOMER THEN ALSO , EITHER THE REIMBURSED AMOUNT SHOULD BE CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IF THE EXPENSES ARE DEBI TED IN FULL AND IF THE REIMBURSED AMOUNT IS NOT CREDITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT, THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE NET OF THE REIMBURSED AMOUNT. SINCE NO FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A), WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BY BRINGI NG EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT AND THE EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS AFTER DEDUCTING SUCH RECEIPT IN THE FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IF REQUIRED, THE CIT(A) CAN OBTAIN REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WHICH IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO OUR ORDER. THE CIT(A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTE R PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 9 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE C ROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR