Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3483 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-02-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
31-01-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) M/S. GE ENERGY PARTS INC., VS. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.7A, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, NEW DELHI. DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE III, GURUGRAM 122 002. (PAN : AACCG2798N) STAY NO.82/DEL/2019 (IN ITA NO.695/DEL./2019) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) AND ITA NO.695/DEL./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. GE WIND ENERGY GMBH, VS. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL T AXATION), 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.7A, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, NEW DELHI. DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE III, GURUGRAM 122 002. (PAN : AACCG2798N) ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 2 STAY NO.83/DEL/2019 (IN ITA NO.697/DEL./2019) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) AND ITA NO.697/DEL./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) STAY NO.84/DEL/2019 (IN ITA NO.696/DEL./2019) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) AND ITA NO.696/DEL./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC, VS. DCIT (INTERNA TIONAL TAXATION), 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.7A, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, NEW DELHI. DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE III, GURUGRAM 122 002. (PAN : AADCG1587G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIT JOLLY, ADVOCATE SHRI AARUSH BHATIA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI G.K. DHALL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 25.02.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH : SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY WAY OF COMPOSITE ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 3 2. THE APPELLANT, M/S. GE ENERGY PARTS INC. (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 PASSE D BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-42, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT (A)'] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ('AO') IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.24,93,590/- UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE 'ACT'). 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION P ENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CON CEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE APPELLANT MADE COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACC OMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD B EEN DELETED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CAL EDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION SERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE A Y 2 011-12. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADM ITTED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME A Y ON A SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EXISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABL ISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALT Y COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORM ED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIED. ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 4 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT S ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE APPELLANT, M/S. GE WIND ENERGY GMBH (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 PASSE D BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-42, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT (A)'] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ('AO') IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.20,85,540/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURIS DICTION AND CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME H AVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U NDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION O F PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE APPELLANT MADE COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACC OMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 5 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD B EEN DELETED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CAL EDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION SERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE A Y 2 011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADM ITTED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EXISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABL ISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALT Y COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORM ED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROF ITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT, M/S. GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILI NG THE PRESENT APPEALS, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DA TED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-42, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS, E XCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN PENALTY AMOUNT, INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT(A)'] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 6 OFFICER ('AO') IN LEVYING PENALTY (RS.20,20,281/- & RS.59,52,684/- IN AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09) UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORD ER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHO UT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION INASM UCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMI TATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATIO N OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY I S INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE APPELLANT MADE COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENAL TY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN TH E CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION SERVICE OPERATIO N LLP FOR THE A Y 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HA VING ADMITTED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME A Y ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EXISTENCE OF A PERM ANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 7 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS RO YCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASIS OF THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS O F PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHIC H WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT TANTAMO UNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 144C (5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AT AN INCOME OF RS. 69,93,234/-, RS.67,13,210/-, RS.65,03,129/- & RS.1,89,75,205/- FOR AYS 2001- 02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, A O PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULL M ATERIAL FACTS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT FROM THI S PE AND HAS THEREBY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. C ONSEQUENTLY, AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.24,93,590/-, RS.20,85,545/ -, ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 8 RS.20,20,281/- & RS.59,52,684/- IN AYS 2001-02, 200 6-07, 2007- 08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY @ 100%. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF APPEALS WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO BY DISMISSING THE APPEALS. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS C OME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED BY THE AO HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS BY THE TR IBUNAL, WHO HAVE HELD THAT GE OVERSEAS ENTITIES HAVE PES IN VAR IOUS FORMS AND THESE ARE FIXED PLACE PE, OFFICE PE, CONSTRUCTION P E AND AGENCY PE AND IN CASE OF OIL AND GAS BUSINESS, INVOLVES IN INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION PE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED GLOBAL PROFIT OF 10% ON THE SAL ES MADE TO THE CUSTOMER IN INDIA, THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PE WAS COMPUTED AT 3.5% OF THE SALES MADE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN A BATCH OF ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 9 PETITIONS BEARING NO. ITA 660/2017 & ORS. AND VIDE ORDER DATED 15.01.2018 , QUESTIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN FRAMED WHICH ARE EXTRA CTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- (1) DID ITAT FELL INTO ERROR IN ITS FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTENCE OF A FIXED PLACE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA; (2) DID ITAT FELL INTO ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT ASSESSEE/APPELLANT'S SEPARATELY INDEPENDENT AGENT P E, WAS LOCATED IN INDIA; AND, (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW, THE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ATTRIBUTING AS HIGH AS 35% OF THE PROFITS TO THE AL LEGED MARKETING ACTIVITIES AND THEREAFTER, ATTRIBUTING 75 % OF SUCH 35% PROFITS TO THE ALLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT IN INDIA? 9. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUP RA), IT HAS BECOME CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE AS SESSEE IS HAVING FIXED PLACE PE IN INDIA IS DEBATABLE ONE AND IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS NOT SUST AINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 10. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, SINCE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN FRAMED BY HONBLE HIGH COU RT ON THE ISSUE IF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING FIXED PLACE PE IN I NDIA, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF LEVYING/CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE BECOMES DEBATABLE, HENCE PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION RENDERED ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 10 BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA 240/2009 IN CIT-II VS. LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. ORDER DATED 05.10 .2010 WHEREBY IDENTICAL ISSUE IS DECIDED AS UNDER :- BOTH THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ITAT HAVE SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE . WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT AGAINST THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT HEREUNDER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS PRESCRIBED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN THIS COURT UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE ACT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED AND SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . 11. CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONF IRMED BY LD. CIT (A) OF RS.24,93,590/-, RS.20,85,545/-, RS.2 0,20,281/- & RS.59,52,684/- IN AYS 2001-02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2 008-09 RESPECTIVELY IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED AND ALL THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 12. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT SINCE APPEALS BEA RING ITA NOS. 695/DEL/2019, 696/DEL/2019 & 697/DEL/2019 HAVE BEEN DECIDED, AFORESAID STAY PETITIONS FILED THEREIN STAND DISMIS SED HAVING BEEN BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019/TS ITA NO.6403/DEL./2018 ITA NO.695, 696 & 697/DEL./2019 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-42, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
