Shri Subhash Chand Kapania Prop., Roorkee V. ITO, Roorkee

ITA 762/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3418 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP., M/S KAPANIA MARBLE STORE, GANESHPUR, ROORKEE. PAN-AEFPK6801A ( APPELLANT) V / S ITO, WARD -2, ROORKEE (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY DR.RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY SH.N.K.BANSAL, SR.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2011 OF CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2011 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER), PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF T HE ACT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN ( THE LD. CIT(A)), IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECT URES, ASSUMING INCORRECT FACTS AND HENCE IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW . 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,52,538/- (ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK SHORTAGE) AND RS.2,43,500/- (OUT O F TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.373500/- MADE BY THE LD.AO, ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENTS, BEING CERTAIN ENTRIES RECORDED ON A LO OSE PARCHA), WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFO RE HIM AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO EACH OTHER. PAGE 2 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, LATER , AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING. (B). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH GROUNDS OF A PPEAL ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITIONS OF RS.1 ,52,538/- (ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK SHORTAGE) AND RS.2,43,500/- (OUT OF TOTAL DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.373500/- MADE BY THE LD. AO, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENTS, BEING CERTAIN ENTRIES RECORDED ON A LOOSE PARCHA). RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,79,100/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2007. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT, THE NET SHORTAGE OF STOCK WAS VALUED AT RS.1,52,538/- (I.E. THE VALUE OF STOCK AS PER BOOKS WAS HIGHER BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,52,538/- AS C OMPARED TO VALUE OF STOCK PHYSICALLY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY). INI TIALLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SHORTAGE IN STOCK WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS LYING WITH SISTER CONCERN NAMELY M/S AMBA MARBLE IN DUSTRIES. ON VERIFICATION WITH M/S AMBA MARBLE INDUSTRIES, HOWEV ER, THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE WRONG, AS M/S AMBA MA RBLE INDUSTRIES DENIED THAT ANY STOCK BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS LYING WITH THEM. AT A LATER STAGE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ANOTHER EXPLANAT ION BY WAY OF RE- CONCILIATION BETWEEN STOCK PHYSICALLY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN PAGE 3 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO SHORT AO) REJECTED THIS SECOND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS BEING AN AFTER THOUGHT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12 .2009, THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,52,538/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION, VIDE IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER DATED 02.11.2011. (B.1). THE AO ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,73,500/ - ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER FOUND AT THE TIME OF AFORESAID SURVEY U/S 133 A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT NOTINGS UNDER LOOSE PAPER CONTAIN ENTRIES OF RS.17,000/-, RS.1,20,000/-, RS.80,000/-, RS.50,000/-, RS.30,000/ -, RS.50,000/- RS.30,000/- RS.18,000/-, RS.8,500/-, THE GROSS TOTA L OF WHICH IS STATED AT RS.4,53,500/-. THEN, THERE IS A DEDUCTION OF RS.80 ,000/- ON THE LOSSE PAPER, AND THE NET AMOUNT IS STATED TO BE RS.3,73,5 00/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EXPL ANATION REGARDING THE AFORESAID ENTRIES THE GROSS TOTAL OF WHICH IS AFORE SAID RS.4,53,500/-. THE AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID NET AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,500/-. THE LD.CIT(A) TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE AFORESAID GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.4,53,500/- INSTEAD OF THE AFORESAID NE T AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,500/-. HOWEVER, HE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SOME SPECIFIC ENTRIES ON THE LOOSE PAPER, TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHICH PAGE 4 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO WAS RS.2,10,000/-. HE THUS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,43,500/- WHICH IS RS.4,53,500/- MINUS RS.2,10,000/-. (B.2). THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON BOTH THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS OF RS.1,52,538/- (AS PER FOREGO ING PARAGRAPH B) AND RS.2,43,500/- (AS PER FOREGOING PARAGRAPH B.1). (C) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.1,52,53 8/- WAS MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE STOCK RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. INSTEAD O F REJECTING THE STOCK RECONCILIATION MERELY AS AN AFTER THOUGHT, THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE STOCK RECONCILIATION PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE ON MERITS, HE CONTENDED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS CONTENTION, TH E LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1,52,538/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES, THE A DDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO THE GROSS PROFIT EARNED ON THE A LLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES, AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF JANTA TILES VS ACIT IN IT(SS)A NO.-144/PUNE/1996 DATED 06.04.1999 [2000] 66 TTJ 0695. ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD.CIT DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (IN SHORT DR) APPEARING FOR THE RE VENUE STATED THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE STOCK RECONCILIATION FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO AO WAS DOUBTFUL BECAUSE OF VARYING EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE AT DIFFERENT PAGE 5 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO STAGES. HE POINTED OUT THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SHORTAGE IN STOCK WAS BECAUSE THE SAME WAS LYING WI TH THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN NAMELY M/S AMBA MARBLE INDUSTRIES; AND IT W AS ONLY WHEN THIS EXPLANATION WAS FOUND TO BE WRONG THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH THE SECOND EXPLANATION BY WAY OF STOCK RECONCILIATION. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PATIENTLY ON THIS ISSUE AND WE HAVE ALSO CARE FULLY CONSIDERED ALL MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAVE SUMMARILY REJECTED THE STOCK RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MERITS OF STOCK RECONCILIATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE L OWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN THE REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE ENT IRE AMOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,52,538/- WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY THE ADDITION WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO GROSS PROFIT ON THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES. IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE STOCK RECONCILIATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON M ERITS AND TO GIVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO DIREC TED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER GIVING CATEGORICAL FINDING WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUN T OF THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES IS TO BE ADDED OR ONLY THE GROSS P ROFIT EARNED ON SUCH ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES IS TO BE ADDED AS ASSESSEE S INCOME. THIS ISSUE IS PAGE 6 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO RESTORED WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ORDER AS PER LAW. (C.1) AS FAR AS THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. RS.2, 43,500/- IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENTED THAT THE LOO SE PAPER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THIS ADDITION IS MADE IS A DUMB DOCUMENT AS IT IS UNDATED AND UNSIGNED, AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF IT. THE LD. COUNSEL CITED A FEW CAS E LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION INCLUDING (I) CIT VS VINEET AGGARWAL (2015) 121 DTR 241 (DELH I); (II) CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA VS ACIT [1999] 71/ITD/245 [PUNE]; (III) D.D.MALHAN VS DCIT 91/TTJ/947. (DELHI). IN THIS REGARD, OUR SPECIAL ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VINEET AGGARWAL (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED AL L THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO THE ENTIRE SATISFACTION OF THE AO DESP ITE WHICH THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THA T COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO WERE ALSO SUBMITT ED THE LD.CIT(A) BUT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE DUE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL, MOREOVER, ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDE RED THE AFORESAID GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.4,53,500/- INSTEAD OF THE NET AMOUNT O F RS.3,73,500/- CONSIDERED BY THE AO, AND THEREBY ERRED IN ENHANCIN G THE ADDITION BY AN PAGE 7 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/- (I.E. RS.4,53,500/- MINUS RS. 3,73,500/-); WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE , THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO GIVE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD ALREADY CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,538/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALE S. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TELESCOPED WITH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN T HE LOOSE PAPER. THE LD.CIT (DR) APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THA T THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN VIEW OF THE STA TUTORY PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 292C OF THE ACT. HE SUPPORTED THE A DDITION OF RS.2,43,500/- AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PATIENTLY. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE M ATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE PRECEDENTS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK BEFORE US CONTAINING 10 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES T HE COPY OF THE ASSESSEES REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO AND COPY OF AS SESSEES SUBMISSIONS FILED TO LD.CIT(A). THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OWNED UP THIS DOCUMENT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DURING APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED EXPLANATION AND SUPP ORTING EVIDENCES PAGE 8 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO REGARDING THE VARIOUS ENTRIES ON THIS DOCUMENT BEFO RE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THEREBY OWNING UP THE LOOSE P APER. THE CONTENTION THAT THE DOCUMENT IS DUMB IS INCONSISTENT WITH TH E ASSESSEES OWN CONDUCT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DURING AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OWNED UP THE LOOSE PAPER BY FURNISHING EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND BY FURNISHING SUPPORTING EVIDENCES; THE ASSESSEE IS BA RRED BY PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL TO DENY CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPER AT A L ATER STAGE BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT. IN VIEW OF THESE DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS, THE RELIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRECEDEN TS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, LACKS FORCE AND CONVICTION. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION W ITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES OF RS.17,000/-, RS. 1,20,000/-, RS.18,000/-, RS.8,500/- AND RS.80,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNI SHED EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AND COPIES THEREOF WERE ALS O FURNISHED TO THE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK BEF ORE US CONTAINING 10 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES THE COPY OF THE ASSESSEES REP LY FILED BEFORE THE AO AND COPY OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS FILED TO LD.CIT( A). THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND DOES NOT EXPL AIN WHY THE EXPLANATION/EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE AO AND BEFORE LD.CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REJECTED. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO SILENT ON PAGE 9 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO WHY HE CHOSE TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS .4,53,500/- AND NOT THE AFORESAID NET AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,500/-; AND FRO M PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THERE IS NO MENTION THAT ANY OPPOR TUNITY WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TAKING THIS STEP. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS A NON- SPEAKING ORDER AND HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, THEREFO RE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ORDERS ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER GIVING REASONS FOR WHY THE EXPLANATION/EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND BEFORE LD.CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND WHY HE CHOSE TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.4,53,500/- AND NOT THE A FORESAID NET AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,500/-. THE LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PROVI DE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING FRESH ORDER. THIS I SSUE IS RESTORED, WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS, TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A), FOR FRESH ORDERS AS PER LAW. (C.2). AS FAR AS CLAIM NOW MADE ON BEHALF OF ASSESS EE BEFORE US REGARDING BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT N O SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND/PLEA WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE AO. TELESCOPING IS AN ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASE, AND REVE NUE MUST GET AN PAGE 10 OF 10 I.T.A .NO.-762/DEL/2012 SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP. VS ITO OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THIS CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF F ACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT GOT THIS OPPO RTUNITY AS THIS CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DECLINE TO ADJUDICATE ON THE ISSU E OF TELESCOPING, AT PRESENT. WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE BOTH THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE (ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALES AND ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE PAPER) TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). IF THE ASSESSEE NOW RAISES A GROUND BEFORE LD.CIT(A) TO CLAIM BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING, THE LD.C IT(A) WILL DEAL WITH THE GROUND AND DISPOSE IT OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (D). THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OFF IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, TH IS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS WRITTEN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST APRIL 2017. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:-21 ST APRIL, 2017 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI