Addl.CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi V. PNB Gilts Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7434/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9129 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 13; 10

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 7434/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING) ADDL. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-7 ROOM NO. 211, C. R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS PNB GILTS LTD. 4 TH FLOOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, 5, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI PAN: AAACP7685B (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER D ATED 28/09/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 4,36,45,000/- U/S 14A OF IT ACT IGNORING THE MANDATORY NATURE OF RULE 8D AND THE BINDING CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.2014. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,70,42,000/- U/S 36(I)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E THE BUSINESS APPELLANT BY SH. SHIV SWAROOP SINGH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY MS. SANA BAGAI, CA DATE OF HEARING 29.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.08.2021 2 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 PURPOSE FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FUNDS RAISED FROM BO RROWED CAPITAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A NBFC. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.84,44,73,590/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 4/3/2016 MADE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,73,10,000/- AS WELL AS DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T U/S 36(I) (III). 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,36,45,000/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I GNORING THE MANDATORY NATURE OF RULE 8D AND THE BINDING CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11/2/2014. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE C IT(A) ALSO ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,70,42,000/- U/S 36(I)(III) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FUNDS RAISED FROM BORROWED CAPITAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT U/S 14A AS THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND AN INTEREST IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 6. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED BACK BOTH THE ISSUES TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD. 402 ITR 640. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THOUGH IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MA XOPP INVESTMENT LTD. WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF GIVING THE SAID DECISI ON BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS PER 3 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICA L IN PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13 BEING ITA NO. 682/DEL/2017 ORDER DATED 1/5/2020 HELD AS UNDER:- 3.6 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THOUGH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE , BUT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD (SUPRA), CITED BY THE LEARNED DR, TH E ISSUE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NEED TO BE RECONSIDERED. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AMOUN TING TO 392.6 LAKHS ON TWO GROUNDS. 3.7 FIRST GROUND BEING THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED ON STOCK-INTRADE WILL NOT ATTRACT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE A CT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CCI LTD VS JCIT (SUPRA). HOWEVER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CCI LTD (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : 36) THERE IS YET ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH STILL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN- TRADE AND NOT AS INVESTMENT, PARTICULARLY, BY THE BANKS? ON THIS SPECIFIC ASPECT, CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 18/2015 DATED NOVEMBER 02, 2015. 37) THIS CIRCULAR HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN PA RA 19 ABOVE. THIS CIRCULAR TAKES NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS CO URT IN NAWANSHAHAR CASE WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT INVESTMENT S MADE BY A BANKING CONCERN ARE PART OF THE BUSINESS OR BANKING . THEREFORE, THE INCOME ARISES FROM SUCH INVESTMENTS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS OF BANKING FALLING UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS AND 4 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 PROFESSION. ON THAT BASIS, THE CIRCULAR CONTAINS T HE DECISION OF THE 6 ITA NO.682/DEL/2017 BOARD THAT NO APPEAL WOULD BE FILED ON THIS GROUND BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND I F THE APPEALS ARE ALREADY FILED, THEY SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. A READING OF THIS CIRCULAR WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AS TO WHETHE R INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES SHALL BE CHARGEABLE T O INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR IT IS TO FALL UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION . THE BOARD, GOING BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NAWANSHAHAR CASE, CLARIFIED THAT IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FALLING UNDER T HE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE BOARD AL SO WENT TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE LIMITED ONL Y TO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/BANKS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT BUT WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL BANKS/COMME RCIAL BANKS, TO WHICH BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 APPLIES. 38) FROM THIS, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT POINTE D OUT THAT THIS CIRCULAR CARVES OUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STO CK-IN-TRADE AND INVESTMENT AND PROVIDES THAT IF THE MOTIVE BEHIND PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS TO EARN PROFIT, THEN THE SAME WOU LD BE TREATED AS TRADING PROFIT AND IF THE OBJECT IS TO DERIVE INCOM E BY WAY OF DIVIDEND THEN THE PROFIT WOULD BE SAID TO HAVE ACCR UED FROM INVESTMENT. TO THIS EXTENT, THE HIGH COURT MAY BE C ORRECT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TEST OF DOMINAN T INTENTION APPLIED BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISCARDED. IN THAT EVENT, THE QUESTION IS A S TO ON WHAT BASIS THOSE CASES ARE TO BE DECIDED WHERE THE SHARE S OF OTHER COMPANIES ARE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEES AS STOCK- IN-TRADE AND NOT AS INVESTMENT. WE PROCEED TO DISCUSS THIS ASP ECT HEREINAFTER. 5 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 39) IN THOSE CASES, WHERE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK- IN-TRADE, THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO TRADE IN THOSE SHARES AND EARN P ROFITS THEREFROM. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THOSE PROFITS WHICH WOULD NATURALLY BE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER THE HE AD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. WHAT HAPPENS I S THAT, IN THE PROCESS, WHEN THE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRAD E, CERTAIN DIVIDEND IS ALSO EARNED, THOUGH INCIDENTALLY, WHICH IS ALSO AN INCOME. HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 10 (34) OF TH E ACT, THIS DIVIDEND INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME AND IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THIS TRIGGERS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WHICH IS BASED ON THE THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT O F EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE INCOME AS HELD IN W ALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P LTD. CASE. THEREFORE, TO THAT E XTENT, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN ACQUIRING THOSE SHARES WILL HAVE TO BE APPORTIONED. 40) WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS IN THE STATE BANK OF PAT IALA CASES THAT THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAD ALR EADY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME BY APPLYING THE FORMULA CONTAINED IN RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND HOLDING THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. IN SPITE OF 7 ITA NO.682/DEL/2017 THIS EXERCISE OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO, CIT(A) DISALLOWE D THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE. THAT VIEW OF THE CIT(A) W AS CLEARLY UNTENABLE AND RIGHTLY SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT. THEREF ORE, ON FACTS, THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ARRIVED AT A CORR ECT CONCLUSION BY AFFIRMING THE VIEW OF THE ITAT, THOUGH WE ARE NO T SUBSCRIBING TO THE THEORY OF DOMINANT INTENTION APPLIED BY THE HIG H COURT. IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT IN THOSE CASES WHERE SHARES AR E HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, IT BECOMES A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEAL IN THOSE SHARES AS A BUSINESS PROPOSITION. WHE THER DIVIDEND 6 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 IS EARNED OR NOT BECOMES IMMATERIAL. IN FACT, IT WO ULD BE A QUIRK OF FATE THAT WHEN THE INVESTEE COMPANY DECLARED DIVIDE ND, THOSE SHARES ARE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSE E HAS TO ULTIMATELY TRADE THOSE SHARES BY SELLING THEM TO EA RN PROFITS. THE SITUATION HERE IS, THEREFORE, DIFFERENT FROM THE CA SE LIKE MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WOULD CONTINUE T O HOLD THOSE SHARES AS IT WANTS TO RETAIN CONTROL OVER THE INVES TEE COMPANY. IN THAT CASE, WHENEVER DIVIDEND IS DECLARED BY THE INV ESTEE COMPANY THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSEE ALONE. THEREFORE, EVEN AT THE TIME OF INVE STING INTO THOSE SHARES, THE ASSESSEE KNOWS THAT IT MAY GENERATE DIV IDEND INCOME AS WELL AND AS AND WHEN SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME IS GEN ERATED THAT WOULD BE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN CONTRAST, WHERE THE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THIS MAY NOT BE NECESSA RILY A SITUATION. THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO LIQUIDATE THOSE SHARES WHENE VER THE SHARE PRICE GOES UP IN ORDER TO EARN PROFITS. IN THE RESU LT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJ AB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN STATE BANK OF PATIALA ALSO FA IL, THOUGH LAW IN THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED HEREINABOVE. 3.8 ON THE SHARES HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE , AN ASSE SSEE EARN PROFIT OR LOSS ON TRADING OF THE THOSE SHARE AND ADDITIONALLY EARN DIVIDEND ALSO. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DIRECTED TO APPORTION EXPENSES TOWARDS EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME FROM STOCKIN-TRADE A S WELL AS PROFIT EARNED ON TRADING OF STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THE EXPENSE S APPORTIONED TOWARD EXEMPT INCOME ARE ONLY HELD AS LIABLE FOR DI SALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO APPORTION THE PART OF EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AND CONS IDER THAT PART FOR DISALLOWANCE ONLY . 7 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 3.9 THE SECOND GROUND ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IS THAT IN VIEW OF DECISION IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS 8 ITA NO.682/DEL/2017 RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD 31 3 ITR 340(SC), IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE OUT OF FROM SUCH FUND S AND THUS NO DISALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST IS REQUIRED. SIMILAR FIND ING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HDFC BANK LTD (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHARES CAPIT AL AND RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 577.64 CRORES IS MORE THAN THE STOCK IN TRADE OF 68.50 CRORES. 3.9 BUT WE HAVE SEEN THAT EXEMPT INCOME IS NOT ONLY FROM THE EQUITY SHARES KEPT AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BUT ALSO FROM INTERES T OF 4,15,80,043/- RECEIVED ON BONDS. THE SAME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN CO MPLIANCE OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) RULES. BUT ONCE EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED, THEN INTEREST FOR CORRESPONDING BORROWING WOULD BE LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEM ONSTRATE NOT ONLY INVESTMENT IN SHARES HAD BEEN OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS BUT INVESTMENT IN BONDS WAS ALSO MADE OUT INTEREST FREE OWN FUNDS. 3.10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING A FRESH IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ABOVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVIDE ALL DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME AS WELL AS OWN FUNDS AND FUNDS BORROWED. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO PROVIDE DET AILS OF APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES IN RELATION TO A STOCK-IN-TRADE TOWARDS EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME AS WELL AS TOWARDS EARNING TRADING PROFIT. IF THE AO FINDS THAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN A SSETS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE OWN F UNDS , THEN NO DISALLOWANCE WILL BE CALLED FOR UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II ) AND HE WILL NOT BE 8 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO THE 9 ITA NO.682/DEL/2017 APP ORTIONMENT OF THE EXPENSES TOWARDS DIVIDEND INCOME FORM SHARES HELD A S STOCK IN TRADE. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE ARE REMANDING BACK THE SAID ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTUAL ASPE CTS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, G ROUND NO. 1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE SAME IS ALSO DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN 2010-11 BUT FACTS ARE NO T IDENTICAL TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ARE MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO THAT O F THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE TRIBUNAL IN 2012-13 HELD AS UNDER:- 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE CORE ISSUE IS WHETHER DIMINUTION OR RE DUCTION IN PRICE OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE CAN BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING BUSIN ESS INCOME. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A T LIBERTY TO VALUE ITS STOCK AT COST OR MARKET VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER A S PER CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, AND SUCH REDUCTION IF ANY , I N VALUE OF THE SHARES HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WILL BE ALLOWED . BUT, IF SU CH A PROVISION IS MADE OUTSIDE THE TRADING ACCOUNT (ONLY WHILE COMPUTATION OF INCOME) THEN SAME MAY NOT BE ALLOWABLE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE , IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT OR WITHIN THE TRADING ACCOUNT , THEREFORE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE FACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE 13 ITA NO.682/DEL/2017 THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE 9 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO BEING IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE ARE REMANDING BACK THE SAID ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE F ACTUAL ASPECTS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 04/08/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 7434/DEL/2017