M/s Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 76/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8952 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.76/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S ORBIT RESORTS(P) LTD., VS. THE ADDL.CIT, # 256, SECTOR 9C, CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAOCS6503M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2016 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 PERTAININ G TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-1, CHANDIGARH ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH IN APPEAL NO. 506/13-14 DATED 22.12.2015 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE. 2. (A) THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELLY E RRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF RS.16,22,200/- LEVIED BY THE ID. A SSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 221(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, PENALTY SUSTAIN ED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS EXTRACTED FROM THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ARE AS UNDER : 2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.03.2012 DECLARING A TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 1,70,25 ,262/-. AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF TDS/ TCS PAID FOR RS. 39,13,999/-AND ADVANCE TAX OF RS. 50.00 LACS, THE APPELLANT WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY REMAINING AMOUNT AS SELF ASSESSMENT TAX FOR RS. 81,10,99Q/- BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, BUT THE AP PELLANT FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 81,10,990/-. SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY WAS PROVIDED BEFORE HOLDING THE APPELLANT AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 221(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS 'ACT) WAS INITIATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 16,22,20 0/- U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT @ 20% ON THE UNPAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 81,10, 990/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORD IS FOUND TO HAVE PLEA DED FINANCIAL CRUNCH BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIOD . IT WAS PLEADED THAT VARIOUS LOANS HAD BEEN RAISED DURING THE BOOM IN TH E INDUSTRY AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNEXPECTED RECESSION IN THE BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN ITS PAYMENTS EVEN TOWARDS THE BANK. I N SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT WHEREAS THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS MORE THAN RS.26 CRORES AND IN 2 012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING INTO LOSSES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT RETURN FOR 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED ON 30.9.2012 AND AT THAT TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF RS.98,97,160/- ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUESTED TO ADJUST THIS REFU ND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE 30.9.2012 UNDER SECTION 140A OF THE ACT FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS OF FINANC IAL STRINGENCY AND REQUEST FOR ADJUSTING THE REFUND DUE IT WAS PLEADED THAT TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 221(1) OF THE ACT. 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT SINCE SIMILAR EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW BEFORE HIM THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER DESERVED TO BE CONFIRMED. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO OB SERVED THAT FOR 3 BUSINESS LOSS THERE CAN BE MANY REASONS, ONE OF WHI CH MAY BE RAISING HUGE LOANS FROM BANKS REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY SUBS TANTIAL INTEREST FOR THE LOANS, HOWEVER, THE SAID ACTION IT WAS NOTED DOES N OT MEAN THAT THE PAYMENT OF TDS CAN BE IGNORED. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ON 27.3.2012. O N THE SAID DATE IT WAS NOTED NO REFUND WAS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN IF THE REFUND OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DUE IT COULD ONLY BE ADJUSTED AG AINST A NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, IT WAS HELD, COULD NOT HAVE ADJUSTED THE REFUND OF A FUTUR E DATE TOWARDS THE ASSESSEES SELF ASSESSMENT TAX DUE AT THE TIME OF F ILING OF ITS RETURN. RELYING UPON THE EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 221(1) OF THE ACT THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS CONFIRMED AND NOTICE WAS TAKEN OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ONLY ON 17.9.2013. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN SEEKS TO INVOKE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE AS A DEFENSE IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 221(1) SO AS TO ARGUE THAT PENALTY WAS NOT ATTRACTED. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAI D PROVISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE :- S.221 (1) XXXXX [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE PROVES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER THAT THE DEFAULT WAS FOR GOOD A ND SUFFICIENT REASONS, NO PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED UNDER THIS SECTION.] [EXPLANATION. XXXXX.] 5.1 A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE STATUTE PE RMITS THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD IN ITS DEFENSE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DEFAULT HAS OCCURRED. ON A READING OF THE ABOVE IT IS EMIN ENTLY CLEAR THAT THE STATUTE HAS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AU TOMATIC AND THERE IS A DISCRETION VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LEVY OF PENALTY WHEREIN THE 4 ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO PLEAD GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS AS A DEFENSE. WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE A SSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY PLEADING LACK OF FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF A SUDDEN RECES SION IN THE INDUSTRY. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT ITS INCOME OVER THE YEARS HAS DRASTICALLY REDUCED FROM A POSITIVE INCOME OF R S.26 CRORES ODD IN 2010- 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR TO LOSSES IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SUBSTANTIAL AND DRASTIC REDUCTION IN ITS INCOME FROM RS.26 CROR ES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR TO RS.5.51 CRORES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS AN ARGUMENT CONSISTENTLY TAKEN ON RECORD. ON A READING OF THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THIS FACTUAL ASPE CT HAS NEITHER BEEN EXAMINED NOR CONSIDERED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT GENERALIZING THE ISSUE THAT LOSS IS A RESULT OF SUB STANTIAL LOANS PER SE CANNOT BE AN ARGUMENT TO NEGATE THE CLAIM. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH MALA-FIDE INTENT DELIBERATELY , CARELESSLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY TO AVOID PAYING JUST AND DUE TAXES TO THE STATE. WE NOTE THAT THE STATED PURPOSES FOR TAKING THE LOAN AS PER RECO RD IS EXPANSION OF BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF A BOOM IN THE INDUSTRY. THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE CLAIM NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. MERELY BECAUSE IN HINDSIGHT THE DECISI ON APPEARS TO BE A WRONG DECISION AS INSTEAD OF A BOOM THE INDUSTRY GO ES THROUGH A RECESSION SUBSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH AN EVENT CANNOT BE FORESEEN. THUS THE SUBSEQUENT CONSEQUENCES CANNOT BE THE DETE RMINATIVE FACTORS FOR DISMISSING THE CLAIM. IT IS THE FACTS AND FACTORS A VAILABLE AT THE TIME OF LOAN APPLICATIONS WHICH CAN THROW LIGHT ON THE BONA FIDE / MALA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING THE LD. CIT DR HAD SOUGHT A PASS OVER IN ORDER TO RELY UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT WHICH COULD NOT BE READILY CITED. ACCORDINGLY A PASS OVER WAS ALLOWED . THEREAFTER DECISION IN THE CASE OF SATBIR NIJJER VS. CIT IN ITA NO.63 OF 2015 DATED 18 .1.2016 WAS 5 REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT-DR. HOWEVER, ON A READI NG OF THE SAID DECISION THE LD. CIT-DR WAS REQUESTED TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSI TION OF LAW ON WHICH THE REVENUE WOULD SEEK TO RELY UPON. THE LD. DR WA S UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE QUERY. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID DECISION PROCE EDS ON THE PREMISES THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS FOUND TO HAVE DIVERTED ITS MONEY BY INVESTING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ITS LAND IN A SISTER CONCERN WHICH WAS INCURRING LOSSES WITH THE INTENTION FOR AVOIDING THE LIABILITY OF INCOME- TAX. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE SOUGHT TO BE UPSET BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REFUSED TO INTERFERE IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE IN THE FACE OF THE CONSISTENT ORDERS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER; CIT APPEALS; AND THE ITAT. THE DECISION WAS AGAIN READ IN THE OPEN COURT AND THE LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE DIRECT RELEVAN CE OF THE SAID DECISION AT THIS POINT OF TIME AS THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE STILL NEED TO BE FIRST MARSHALLED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THE SAID DECISIO N WAS FOUND TO BE FACT SPECIFIC AS THE DIVERSION OF FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WAS FOUND TO BE INTENTIONAL AND AT BEST MAY COME IN TO PLAY ONCE THE FACTS ARE FOUND TO BE IDENTICAL. 5.3 THE LEARNED CIT DR ALSO SOUGHT TO RELY UPON A D ECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATED 16.1.2015 IN ITA NO .134 OF 2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S KUDOS CHEMIE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH VS. CIT WHICH APPEAL HAD BEEN REMANDED TO THE ITAT AND ALSO LISTED FOR HEARI NG BEFORE THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION ALONGWITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETENESS OF THE RECORD, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO BRIEFLY REF ER TO THE ACCEPTED FACTS ON RECORD IN THE SAID CASE : NAMELY, THE PENALTY IMPOS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 140A(3) R.W.S. 221(1) OF THE ACT OF RS. 66 CRORES AND RS.65 CRORES IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS PARTLY SUST AINED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2013 IN ITA NO.1137 & 1138/CHD/2010 IN 6 2008-09 & 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAID PENAL TY IN THE YEARS HAD BEEN HELD TO BE NOT EXIGIBLE BY THE CIT (APPEALS) I N THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE COORDINATE BEN CH BY ALLOWING THE REVENUES APPEAL HAD RESTRICTED THE PENALTY TO RS.1 0 CRORE IN EACH OF THE TWO YEARS. THE SAID DECISION WAS CHALLENGED IN APPE AL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE I.T.A.TS ORDER WHEREIN THE RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE REVENUE ON THE GROUNDS OF ENDS OF JUSTICE AND APPLYING LIBERAL INTERPRETATION FAULTED THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION WITHOUT REFERRING TO RELEVANT FACTS. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID DECISION OF T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT SHOWS THAT THE REMAND WAS VERY FACT SPECIFIC AS THE FINDING OF THE ITAT THAT THE PENALTY WAS TO BE LEVIED HAD NOT BEEN UPSET BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE AND ON THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHEN THE FACTUM OF LEVY OF PENALTY HAD BECOME FINAL BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT DIRECTED A REMAND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROPER Q UANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY UPSETTING THE ESTIMATE OF THE ITAT AS HAVIN G BEEN ARRIVED AT WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE RELEVANT FACTS HOLDING AS UNDER :- . THE ASSESSEE HAS, AS RECORDED IN THE OPENING PARAGR APH OF THE JUDGMENT, GIVEN UP A CHALLENGE TO EXIGIBILITY TO PE NALTY AND, THEREFORE, THE QUESTIONS, AS AGREED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, TH AT REQUIRE AN ANSWER ARE (A) WHETHER QUANTUM OF PENALTY CAN BE DETERMINED WITHOU T REFERRING TO RELEVANT FACTORS AND ASSIGNING ADEQUATE REASONS? (B) WHETHER QUANTUM OF PENALTY DETERMINED IS NOT PERVERSE AND ARBITRARY? AND (C) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING QUANTUM OF PENALTY, UNDER SECTION 221 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). THE QUESTIO NS ARE BEING ANSWERED TOGETHER. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID EXTRACT REVEALS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ASSESSEE'S EXIGIBILITY TO PENALTY, BUT WHILE DO ING SO, HAS REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY TO RS.10 LACS FOR EACH FINANCIAL YEAR WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON OTHER THAN HOLDING THAT 'THE ENDS OF JUSTICE' AND A 'LIBERAL INTERPRETATION' REQUIRE THAT THE PENALTY BE REDUCED. THE WORDS 'ENDS OF JUSTICE' AND 'APPLYING A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION' ARE MEANINGLESS IF THEY DO NOT REFER TO RELEVANT FACTS OR FACTORS THAT UNDERLINE 'THE ENDS OF JUSTICE' AND ' A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION'. T HE MERE USE OF THE WORDS 'THE ENDS OF JUSTICE' AND 'A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION' WHI LE REDUCING PENALTY FROM RS.66 7 LACS TO RS.10 LACS EACH, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAD ACCEPTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ONUS TO EXPLAIN ITS DEF AULT, ARE INSUFFICIENT TO INFER A LEGAL EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE QUA NTUM OF PENALTY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MEET THE PARAME TERS OF A JUDICIAL, MUCH LESS A QUASI JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. WHILE EXERCISI NG THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY, WHETHER IN ORIGINAL OR APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, THE DISCRETION SO CONFERRED HAS TO BE EXERCISED BY REFE RENCE TO RELEVANT FACTS, FOLLOWED BY A PERCEPTIBLE PROCESS OF REASONING, LEA DING TO A FAIR AND JUST CONCLUSION. A FEW FACTORS WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, MAY BE RELEVANT, THOUGH NOT BE EXHAUSTIVE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ARE:- (A) THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT; (B) THE REASONS FOR DEFAULT; (C) THE RECURRING NATURE OF THE DEFAULT; (D) CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND (E) ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PUTFORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY RELEVANT FACT OR FACTOR BUT BY MERELY USING A FEW LEGAL PHRASES, REDUCED THE PENALTY FROM 66/60 TO 10 LACS EACH. THE DISCRETION CONFERRED TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY, IS J UDICIAL IN NATURE AND MAY IF THE FACTS AND FACTORS SO WARRANT, BE MORE OR LESS T HAN THE RS.10 LACS DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR THE RS.66 LACS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL HAVING DETERMINED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY W ITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY TANGIBLE REASON OR BY REFERRING TO ANY RELEVANT FAC T OR FACTOR, HAS ARBITRARILY REDUCED PENALTY TO RS.10 LACS. THE TRIBUNAL WOULD, THEREFORE, BE REQUIRED TO RECONSIDER THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LIABLE TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVE NUE ACCORDINGLY. [ EMPHASIS PROVIDED ] 5.4 ACCORDINGLY, ON READING OF THE SAID DECISION WE FIND THAT THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE FACTS WHICH WOULD BE DETERMINA TIVE FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE. THE PARTIES HAVE REQUESTED A REMAND TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS THE ARGUMENT ON FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TAX AUTHORITI ES. THE LD. AR HAD INITIALLY TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE ISSUE BE DECI DED AT THIS STAGE BUT FINALLY IN THE FACE OF THE RELUCTANCE OF THE REVENUE TO ADO PT THE SAID COURSE IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE REMANDED FOR CONSIDER ING THE FACTS. THE RELUCTANCE OF THE LD. CIT-DR WAS ON THE GROUNDS THA T THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND ARGUMENTS NEED TO BE VERIFIED. CONSIDERING THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT-DR ON FACTS WAS JUSTIFIED TO REQUEST A REMAND. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFORESAID PECULIAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DI RECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSES SEE A REASONABLE 8 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO D IRECTED AT THE SAME TIME TO PLACE FULL AND NECESSARY FACTS AND EVIDENCES IN SUP PORT OF ITS CLAIM IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A SPEAK ING ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (DIVA SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 *RATI*/SUJEET COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH