ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Spentex Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0047 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARABJEET SINGH S ENIOR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Retrospective amendment; Competent authority; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 92B; 10; 11; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I-2 : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ACIT, CIRCLE 24 (1), VS. M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES L IMITED, NEW DELHI. A 60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE - II, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCS4997E) CO NO.169/DEL/2017 ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 24 (1), A 60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE - II, NEW DE LHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCS4997E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SARABJEET SINGH, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 31.12.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF COMPOSITE ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 2 2. THE APPELLANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 24 (1), NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) 44, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 011-12 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TA KE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF COMPENSATION FOR PROVIDING CORPORAT E GUARANTEE @ 1% WHICH DETERMINED AS RS.2,89,13,635/- AS AGAINS T RS.7,45,97,179/- (@ 2.58%) COMPUTED BY AO/TPO AND T HEREBY ALLOWING A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF RS.4,56,83,544/- . 3. THE OBJECTOR, M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED, B Y FILING THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 26.10.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A)-44, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE GR OUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN C ONSIDERING CORPORATE GUARANTEE AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION . 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TAKING THE ARMS LENGTH COMPENSATION RATE ON CORPORATE GUARANTEE @ 1%. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSI NESS OF MANUFACTURER OF POLYESTER COTTON YARN, COTTON YARN, MAN-MADE FIBRE YARN, VISCOSE COTTON YARN AND SYNTHETIC YARN ETC.. ASSESSING ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 3 OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASS ESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION W ITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE) WITH THE USE OF TRANSAC TIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS WAS AT RS.2,89,13,63,550/-. AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ARMS LENGTH PRIC E OF TRANSACTIONS QUA CORPORATE GUARANTEE BE NOT DETERMINED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, CORPORATE GUARANTEE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY T HE TAXPAYER TO ITS AE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES :- (I) CORPORATE GUARANTEE TO TASHKENT TOYEPA TEXTIL F OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.192,85,17,500. (II) CORPORATE GUARANTEE TO LEHMAN BROTHERS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.87,36,66,050/-. (III) CORPORATE GUARANTEE TO CVCI FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,91,80,000/-. 5. ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT REALIZED THE AMOUNT IT HAD CHARGED TO AE FOR WHICH PLAN FOR RESTRUCTURING DATED 13.11.2009 HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE DUES OF THE UNSECURED C REDITORS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO 29.15%. AO SOUGHT TO APPLY MARK UP OF 2.58% ON THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BY FO LLOWING THE ORDER PASSED IN AY 2009-10. DECLINING THE CONTENTI ONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO MADE ADJUSTMENT IN ARMS LENGTH PR ICE (ALP) @ 2.58% FOR THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE ON THE GROUND THA T THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 4 HAS EXPOSED ITSELF TO GREATER RISK WITHOUT CHARGING ANY AMOUNT FROM ITS AE AND THEREBY COMPUTED THE SAME AS UNDER :- S. NO. TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE (RS.) ARMS LENGTH COMPENSATION @ 2.58% 1. TASHKET TOYEPA TEXTILE 192,85,17,500 4,97,55,751 2. LEHMAN BROTHERS 87,36,66,050 2,25,40,584 3. CITI VENTURE CAPITALISTS 8,91,80,000 23,00,844 TOTAL 7,45,97,179 6. AO THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7,45,97,179/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B Y RESTRICTING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF COMPENSATION FOR PROVIDING CO RPORATE GUARANTEE @ 1% AS AGAINST 2.58% COMPUTED BY THE AO FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE AND THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEV ED, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAVE COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTIONS RESPECTIVELY . 8. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 5 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE 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. 10. LD. CIT (A) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINE D IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B WHICH IS WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2002 AND BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERE D BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MAHINDR A & MAHINDRA LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 24 TAXMANN.COM 267 (MUMBAI) HE LD THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS A E QUA CORPORATE GUARANTEE AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSORS OF EARLIER YEARS IN RE STRICTING THE ALP OF COMPENSATION FOR PROVIDING CORPORATE GUARANTEE @ 1% AS AGAINST 2.58% ASSESSED BY THE AO. 11. IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT I DENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AYS 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN ITA NOS. 4959/DEL/2014, 6243/DEL/2014 & 6244/DEL/2014 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ORDER DATED 17.05.2 018. 12. BARE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER (SUPRA) PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE GOES T O PROVE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 6 HOLDING THAT EXPLANATION INTRODUCED IN SECTION 92B BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THUS TRAN SFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE FEE MA DE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. FOR FACILITY OF REFERENCE, OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER :- 12. THE BONE OF CONTENTION IS THE AMENDMENT BROUG HT IN THE ACT IN SECTION 292B OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER PRICING LE GISLATION. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED W.R.E FROM 1.4.2002 I.E. RIGHT FROM THE TIME OF INCEPTION OF T RANSFER PRICING LEGISLATION IN INDIA. 13. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT DELHI IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 5816/DEL/2 012 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2014 HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE AS INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTION. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER: (I) A TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO ENTERPRISES CONSTITUT ES AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S 92B ONLY IF IT HAS A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOMES, LOSSES, OR ASSETS OF S UCH ENTERPRISES. EVEN THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EXPLANATION TO S. 92 B, WHICH WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT (WHICH INCLUDES GIVING OF GUAR ANTEES UNDER CLAUSES (C)), SHOULD ALSO BE SUCH AS TO HAVE A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOMES, LOSSES OR ASSETS OF SU CH ENTERPRISE; (II) THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOME, LOSSE S OR ASSETS OF THE ENTERPRISE. THE SAID IMPACT HAS TO BE ON REAL BASIS, EVEN IF IN PRESENT OR IN FUTURE, AND NOT ON CONTINGENT OR HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. THERE HAS TO BE S OME MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE, EVEN IF NOT TO ESTA BLISH IT TO HILT, THAT AN INTRA AE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HA S SOME IMPACT ON PROFITS, INCOME, LOSSES OR ASSETS; (III) WHEN AN ASSESSEE EXTENDS ASSISTANCE TO THE AE , WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO THE ASSESSEE AND PARTICULARLY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE REALIZED MONEY BY GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE DURING THE COURS E OF ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 7 ITS NORMAL BUSINESS, SUCH AN ASSISTANCE OR ACCOMMODATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON ITS PROF ITS, INCOME, LOSSES OR ASSETS, AND, THEREFORE, IT IS OUT SIDE THE AMBIT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S 92B (1). 14. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FINDING SHOWS THAT N O TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASE OF NO DIVE RSION OF PROFITS OUT OF INDIA. THE FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCUMULATED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO THE TUNE OF R S. 290 CRORES AND SUBSIDIARIES ARE ALSO IN HEAVY LOSSES. THEREFOR E, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY INTENTION OF DIVERSION OF P ROFITS OUT OF INDIA. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT I NCURRED ANY COST IN PROVIDING CORPORATE GUARANTEE. 15. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE AHMEDABAD BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MICRO INK LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 2873/AHD/2010. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. 16. THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REDINGTON INDIA LTD VS. ACIT [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 146 HAS HELD AS UNDER: (I) A TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO ENTERPRISES CONSTITUT ES AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S 92B ONLY IF IT HAS A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOMES, LOSSES, OR ASSETS OF S UCH ENTERPRISES. EVEN THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EXPLANATION TO S. 92 B, WHICH WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT (WHICH INCLUDES GIVING OF GUAR ANTEES UNDER CLAUSES (C)), SHOULD ALSO BE SUCH AS TO HAVE A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOMES, LOSSES OR ASSETS OF SU CH ENTERPRISE; (II) THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS A BEARING ON PROFITS, INCOME, LOSSE S OR ASSETS OF THE ENTERPRISE. THE SAID IMPACT HAS TO BE ON REAL BASIS, EVEN IF IN PRESENT OR IN FUTURE, AND NOT ON CONTINGENT OR HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. THERE HAS TO BE S OME MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE, EVEN IF NOT TO ESTA BLISH IT TO HILT, THAT AN INTRA AE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HA S SOME IMPACT ON PROFITS, INCOME, LOSSES OR ASSETS; (III) WHEN AN ASSESSEE EXTENDS ASSISTANCE TO THE AE , WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO THE ASSESSEE AND PARTICULARLY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE REALIZED MONEY BY GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE DURING THE COURS E OF ITS NORMAL BUSINESS, SUCH AN ASSISTANCE OR ACCOMMODATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON ITS PROF ITS, INCOME, LOSSES OR ASSETS, AND, THEREFORE, IT IS OUT SIDE THE AMBIT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S 92B (1). 11 ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 8 17. SIMILAR VIEWS WERE TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO 6145/MUM/2012 AND MARICO LTD VS. ACIT REPORTED A T 70 TAXMANN.COM 214. 18. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT HYDERA BAD IN THE CASE OF VIVIMED LABS LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 40 4 AND 479/HYD/2015 HAS HELD THAT HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 CAN ONLY BE PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF SIRO C LINPHARM PRIVATE LTD VS. DCIT ITA NO. 2618/MUM/2014. THIS PR OVISION IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONWARDS. HENCE, ADDITION OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE IN THIS YEAR IS DEL ETED. 19. CONSIDERING THE PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCHES AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE FEE MADE DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE B AD IN LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCHES [SUPRA] WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE T HE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS REL ATING TO CORPORATE GUARANTEE FEE. GROUND NO. 1 IN ALL THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED. 13. FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT OLD AMENDMENT VIDE WHICH EXPLA NATION TO SECTION 92B HAS BEEN INTRODUCED HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THUS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER ASSES SMENT. BECAUSE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS QUA CORPORATE GUA RANTEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT (A) MERELY BY RELYING UPON THE AMENDMENT VIDE WHICH EXPLANATION T O SECTION 92B OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 HAS BEEN IN TRODUCED BY TREATING THE SAME HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, WHIC H IS NO MORE A ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 9 VALID AND SUSTAINABLE LEGAL PROPOSITION. SO, WHEN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEA R UNDER ASSESSMENT, ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION QUA CO RPORATE GUARANTEE CANNOT BE DETERMINED. FURTHERMORE, ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS .1,35,26,955/- AS ON 27.09.2011 AND THE FLAGSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS ACCUMULATED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO THE TUNE OF A BOUT RS.290 CRORES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DIVERSION OF PROFIT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUT OF INDIA. MOREOVER, THERE IS NOT AN IO TA OF MATERIAL ON FILE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCURRE D ANY COST IN PROVIDING CORPORATE GUARANTEE. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDIT ION MADE IN THIS CASE ON ACCOUNT OF TP ADJUSTMENT QUA CORPORATE GUARANTEE FEE IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 14. SINCE TRANSACTION QUA CORPORATE GUARANTEE ENTER ED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ITS AE IS HELD NOT TO BE AN I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DETERMINING TH E ALP OF COMPENSATION FOR PROVIDING CORPORATE GUARANTEE. SO , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONF IRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF DETERMINING THE ALP OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE TRANSACTION @ 1% WHICH IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 10 15. SO FAR AS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS CON CERNED, THE OBJECTIONS ARE HOPELESSLY TIME BARRED HAVING BEEN F ILED WITH DELAY OF 512 DAYS. APPLICATION FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS TOO GENERIC IN NATURE AND REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN ANY CA SE, FACTS AS TO RESHUFFLING OF STAFF OF THE COMPANY AND EVEN THE FI NANCIAL CONTROLLER AND FINANCE HEAD HAVE LEFT THE COMPANY HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE APPELLANT/CROSS OBJECTOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS TO PROVE THE DELAY OF EVERY SINGLE DAY BY GIVING COGENT REASONS. SO, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AN D CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE DISMIS SED BEING HOPELESSLY TIME BARRED. 16. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 TS ITA NO.704/DEL./2016 CO NO.169/DEL/2017 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-44, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.