M/s. M.Nagar Distt. Co-op Development Fed. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6613/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3639 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 3308/DEL/2011 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A .NO. 3309/DEL/2011 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .NO. 6613/DEL/2013 (A.Y 200 7-08) I.T.A .NO. 625//DEL/2015 (A.Y 2007-08) MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO - OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD. C/O. M/S. MALIK & CO. 305- THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT CITY UTTAR PRADESH AAAJM0470E (APPELLANT) VS ADD. CIT RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO - OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD. C/O. M/S. MALIK & CO. 305- THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT CITY UTTAR PRADESH AAAJM0470E (APPELLANT) VS ADD. CIT RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO - OPERATIVE FED. LTD. C/O. R. K. MALIK, ADVOCATE, 1 ST FLOOR, GURDUAWARA BUILDING, ROORKEE ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR AAAJM0470E (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-2 MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO - OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD. R. K. MALIK, ADVOCATE, 1 ST FLOOR, GURDUWARA BUILDING, ROORKEE ROAD, MUZAFFARNGAR AAAJM0470E (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-1 MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT/RESPONDENT BY SH. SANJAY MALIK, ADV RESPONDENT/APPELLANT BY SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/3/2011, 19/9/2013 & 17/11/2014 RESPECTIVELY PASS ED BY CIT(A)- MUZAFFARNAGAR. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 3308/DEL/2011 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND ON THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND THE BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO UPHOLD TH E DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE EX EMPTION AS CLAIMED DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 2. THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE LETTING OF GODOWN S WAS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80P(2)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT AN D ACCORDINGLY APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE SAID PROVISION . THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND ON THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOW ANCE OF THE CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS. THE ADVERSE AND ERRONEOUS FINDINGS DESE RVE TO BE QUASHED BEING ILLEGAL AND UNTENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. 4.(A). THAT THE LOSS OF RS.7,27,254/- ARISING IN C ONSUMERS STORE DIVISION HAVING BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG REGULARLY EMPLOYED AS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE DEBIT AND CREDIT S IDE OF THE ACCOUNT WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THERE BEING NO ERROR OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS ALL THE PURCHASES, EXPENSES AND TURNOVER HAVING BEEN FULLY SUBSTANTIATED, THERE WAS NO LEGAL WARRAN T IN REJECTING THE DECLARED VERSION THEREBY DISALLOWING THE DECLARED L OSS WHICH DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. DATE OF HEARING 23.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10. 04.2017 (B). THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON FACTS AND IN LA W AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO DISALLOW THE DECLARED LOSS OF RS. 7,27,254/- IN THE CONSUMERS STORE DIVISION WHICH D ESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 5.(A). THAT THE LOSS OF RS.8,08,374/'- ARISING IN PRINTING PRESS DIVISION HAVING BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG REGULARLY EMPLOYED AS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE DEBIT AND CREDIT SIDE OF TH E ACCOUNT WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THERE BEING NO ERROR OF OMISSION OR COM MISSION IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS ALL THE PURCHASES, EXPENSES AND TURNO VER HAVING BEEN FULLY SUBSTANTIATED, THERE WAS NO LEGAL WARRANT IN REJECT ING THE DECLARED VERSION THEREBY DISALLOWING THE DECLARED LOSS WHICH DESERVE S TO BE ALLOWED. (B). THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON FACTS AND IN LA W AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO DISALLOW THE DECLARED LOSS OF RS. 8,08,374/- IN THE PRINTING PRESS DIVISION WHICH DES ERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 6. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THERE WAS NO LEGAL WA RRANT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234B; 234C AND 234D. THE LEVY OF INTER EST DESERVES TO BE QUASHED, ILLEGAL AND VOID. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/10 /2005 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.15,92,583/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1 ) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS RELATED TO COLD STORAGE, PRINTING PRESS, GAS AGENCIES ETC. SUMMARY OF PROFIT & LOSS UNDER VARIOUS HEAD I S SHOWN AS UNDER: PARTICULARS PROFITS (RS.) LOSS (RS.) INTEREST 7,56,965.00 HEAD OFFICE (FERTILIZER SALE, TRANSPORTATION & STORAGE 23,27,770.44 GAS SERVICE 4,97,932.64 CONSUMER STORE 7,27,254.81 PRINTING PRESS 8,08,374.67 COLD STORAGE 4,34,705.92 30,84,735.44 24,68,467.74 THE NET PROFIT OF RS.6,16,467,74/- SO DERIVED ABOVE WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPTED U/S 80P(2) (I)(A). IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE PROFIT IS MAINLY DUE TO INTEREST AND HEAD OFFICE (FERTILIZERS SALE T RANSPORTATION STORAGE). THE A.O ALSO GATHERED ON EXAMINING THE TWO ACCOUNTS THAT IN COME FROM TRANSPORTATION AT RS.5,59,596/- AND INCOME FROM STORAGE RS.10,97,4 54/- CREDITED IN THE HEAD OFFICE ACCOUNT ARE NOT EXEMPT U/S 80P(2) OF THE ACT . SIMILARLY, THE SALE PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER IS NOT EXEMPT U/S 80P(2)(I)( A)(IV) AS IT WAS NOT A SALE OF FERTILIZER AMONG MEMBERS BUT A SALE TO IFFCO AND KR IBHCO. THE A.O ALSO HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME AND DIVIDEND INCOME IS ALS O NOT EXEMPT U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENT MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AT INCOME OF RS.6,16,467/- VIDE NOTICE DATED 13/9/2007. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING LO SS IN OTHER TRADING ACCOUNTS CONSISTING OF PRINTING PRESS DIVISION AND COLD STORAGE DIVISION. FROM THE PERUSAL OF TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT IT CONSISTS OF OTHER INCOME SHOWN AT RS.32,563/-, INCOME FROM TRAN SPORTATION AT RS.21,51,666/- AND INCOME FROM STORAGE AT RS.5,59,5 96/- AND NET PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT RS.23,27,770/-. THEREFORE, THE A.O TOOK T HE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION TO CONSIDER EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) DID NOT ARISE A S ALL THE REMAINING INCOME SHOWN IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT ARE NOT COVERED U/S 80 P AND THEREFORE, NET INCOME OF RS.6,16,467/- IS NOT EXEMPT U/S 80P. 4. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THE INCOME FROM TRANSP ORTATION AND LETTING OF GODOWN AS EXEMPTED U/S 80P. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE INCOME OF HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD OF SALE PURCHAS E OF FERTILIZER AND TRANSPORTATION SHOWING AT RS.23,27,770/- IS DIVIDED PROPORTIONATELY BETWEEN TWO OF ITS MAIN ACTIVITIES I.E. PURCHASE OF FERTILI ZER AND SUPPLY TO ITS MEMBERS AND LETTING OF GODOWN AND TRANSPORTATION INCOME. T HE A.O DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IN VIEW OF THE REASON DISCUSSED IN THE NOTICE DATED 18/7/2008 AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE SIM ILAR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THIS ORDER, THE A.O DID NOT ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ME RELY A CONTRACTOR TO TRANSPORT FERTILIZER AND MERELY CHARGING COMMISSION ON CONTRA CT TO TRANSPORT FERTILIZERS. THE A.O HELD THAT THE CONSUMER SOCIETY PURCHASE FER TILIZER DIRECTLY FROM IFFCO AND KRIBHCO AND MADE PAYMENTS DIRECTLY THROUGH CHEQ UES IN FAVOUR OF THESE COMPANIES AND NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE ONL Y CARRIES FERTILIZER FROM THE GODOWN RENTED BY THE FERTILIZER COMPANIES TO THE SO CIETIES SAND CHARGED ONLY TRANSPORTATION. THIS ISSUE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CI T(A) VIDE HIS ORDER NO. 258/-03-04 MZR DATED 3/6/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT WHICH IN THEIR ORDER ITA NO. 429/DEL/2004, 4221/DEL /2004 & 554/DEL/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, 2001-02 & 2002-03 REJECTED THE ASSESSEES GROUND ON THE SAME ISSUE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE SAME. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILE D APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A LOSS UNDER DI FFERENT HEAD OF BUSINESS AND THE ONLY POSITIVE INCOME WAS UNDER INC OME FROM INTEREST AND DIVIDEND WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 80P (2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE OTHER INCOME IS ALSO EXEMPT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY OF P URCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS ETC. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DISC REPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALREADY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT AT ALL DISPUTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT THE FACT REMAINS HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT T HE CONCLUSION WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE SALE WAS FROM THE PREVI OUS YEARS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRY FOR STOCK REGISTER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ONE EMPLOYEE SHRI SURENDER KUMAR WAS A LSO MENTIONED WHEREIN HE STATED THAT THE SAME ENTRIES ISSUED IN HIS NAME BY MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO- OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD. I.E. THE ASSE SSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,54,110/-. THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.11,40,446/-. DURING THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2005-06, THE BALANCE OF RS.4,13,664/- IS APPEARING AS EMPLOYEES LIABILITY IN HIS NAME. THE OTHER EMPLOYEES NAME WAS ALSO GIVEN BY SHRI SURENDE R KUMAR I.E. SHRI OM VEER IN WHOSE NAME SALES WAS SHOWN RS.7,51,492/- TH E ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SALE VOUCHERS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THESE TWO EMPLOYEES SHOWS THAT THEY WERE PURCHASING GOODS FOR SELLING THE SAME IN THE MARKET ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE DOING TRADING OF GOODS BY MAKING PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE AND SEL LING THE SAME IN THE MARKET. BUT THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MAKING SALE TO ITS EMPLOYEES BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE EMPLOYEES ARE MAKING SALES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS VERY TRANSPA RENT AND THERE IS NO MANIPULATION OF PROFIT. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) HAS ARRIVED AT CORRECT FINDING AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS. IT IS PERTINENT T O NOTE THAT THERE IS A LOSS IN RESPECT OF THIS PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE STOCK REGISTER ENTRY HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS WHEREIN THE FIGURES ARE IN T HE MINUS. THERE WAS NO COMMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT (A) AS TO THESE FIGURES ARE CONTRARY TO THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. IN-FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH MENTIONED THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE IT H AS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENT OR ANY OBSERVATION RELATED TO THAT STATEMENT THAT T HE SALE WAS ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES AND NOT THAT OF ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT WAS NOT DEALT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT IS NECESSARY TO REMAND BACK THE MATT ER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENT AS WELL AS TO VERIFY THE STOCK REGISTER AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES. 9. IN RESULT, ITA NO. 3308/DEL/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 3309/DEL/2011. 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WENT WRONG ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION OF RS. 4,56,057/-. THE AD VERSE AND ERRONEOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,56,057/- DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 2. THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE LETTING OF GODO WNS WAS GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. TH E LEARNED CIT (A) WENT WRONG ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWAN CE. THE ADVERSE AND ERRONEOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DESE RVE TO BE QUASHED AND THE EXEMPTION, AS CLAIMED, DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 3(A). THAT THE DECLARED VERSION IN THE PRINTING PRE SS DIVISION WAS WELL SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY A METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG REGULARLY EMPLOYED IN AS MUCH AS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE DEBIT A ND CREDIT SIDE WERE VERIFIABLE AND NO ERROR OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION W AS FOUND OR DETECTED IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ALSO ALL THE ITEMS REC ORDED ON THE DEBIT AND CREDIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT WERE NOT FOUND AND HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE. (B). THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND T HE GROUNDS TAKEN AND THE BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.3,24,632/- IN THE PRINTING PRESS DIVISION. THE E RRONEOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DESERVE TO BE QUASHED A ND THE LOSS, AS CLAIMED, DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4(A). THAT THE DECLARED VERSION IN THE CONSUMER STO RE DIVISION WAS WELL SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY A METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG REGULARLY EMPLOYED IN AS MUCH AS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE DEBIT A ND CREDIT SIDE WERE VERIFIABLE AND NO ERROR OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION W AS FOUND OR DETECTED IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND ALSO ALL THE ITEMS REC ORDED ON THE DEBIT AND CREDIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT WERE NOT FOUND AND HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE. (B). THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND T HE GROUNDS TAKEN AND THE BASIS ADOPTED WENT WRONG TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.2,90,79/- IN THE CONSUMER STORE DIVISION. THE E RRONEOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DESERVE TO BE QUASHED A ND THE LOSS, AS CLAIMED, DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE INTEREST U/S 234B, 23 4C AND 234DWAS NOT CHARGEABLE. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS D ESERVES TO BE QUASHED, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND UNTENABLE ON FACT S AND IN LAW. 11. AS RELATES TO ITA NO. 3309/DEL/2011, THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT HEREIN ABOVE BEING ITA NO. 3308/DEL/2011. 12. IN RESULT, APPEAL NO, BEING ITA NO. 3309/DEL/20 11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 6613/DEL/2013. 1) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND CIT (APPEAL) M. NAGAR IS WRONG AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOM E NOR HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. 3) THAT THE REJECTION OF CERTAIN DEDUCTION DOES NOT A MOUNT TO PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4) THAT THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MATERIAL FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) 5) THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT TO PUT UP ITS CASE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 6) THAT THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT 7) THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) M. NAGAR HAS ALLOWED TH E APPEAL U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2006-07(IN THE SAME FACTS OF THE CASE. 14. IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 6613/DEL/2013, IS RELATED TO PENALTY WHICH IS A CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEING ITA NO.33 09/DEL/2011. THEREFORE, THE SAME BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 15. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 6613/DEL/2013 I S DISMISSED. 16. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 6613/DEL/2013. 1) THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING TH E APPEAL U/S 154 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ALL THE TRANSPORTATIO N CHARGES IN ITS RETURN AND THE A.O. IS WRONG TO ADD THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF GAS AT RS 5157121-00 WHEREAS THE SAME IS DISCLOSED AND THE COMMISSION RE CEIVED ON THESE RECEIPTS ARE SHOWN AT RS. THE RECEIPTS ARE ENDORSED TO DIFFE RENT CONTACTORS AND TDS IS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT. 1 LENCE AD DITION UNDER THIS HEAD IS WRONG AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED. 3) THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED TO REJECT THE APPLICAT ION U/S 154 FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS. 4) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THE DERAILS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND REJECTING THE APPEAL ON DIFFERENT GROUND. 16. AS RELATES TO ITA NO. 625/DEL/2015 THE ISSUE IN THI S MATTER IS RELATED TO REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 154 WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE WAS NO NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR. THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS THAT O F A RECTIFICATION REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE SAME ORIGINAL RECT IFICATION ORDER ONE MORE TIME RECTIFICATION HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT. THE ORIGINAL REC TIFICATION ORDER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL TO THE SECOND RECTIFICATION ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED APPEAL PRIOR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE FIRST RECTIFICATION ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL DOES NOT SUSTAIN. 17. IN RESULT, APPEAL BEING ITA NO.625/DEL/2015 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH OF APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 10/04/2017 *R.NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24/03/2017 SR. PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24/03/2017 SR. PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 10.04.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 10.04.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.