Dr. Naresh Theran, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 934/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3895 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 10(10D); 37(1); 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F. NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 DR. NARESH TREHAN, VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, B-4, MAHARANI BAGH, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI 110 065 NEW DELHI (PAN:AACPT 7305F) [APPELLANT] (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAHUL KHARE, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. H.K. LAL, SR. DR PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 4.2.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUES RAISED READ AS UNDER:- THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN L AW IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,43,28,726/- ON ACCOUNT ENCASH MENT OF KEY MAN POLICY. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN L AW IN PARTLY TREATING THE ENCASHMENT OF KEY MAN POLICY AS REVENUE RECEIPT AS AGAINST CAPITAL RECEIPT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS A RENOWNED DOCTOR B Y PROFESSION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASESEE RECEIVED ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 2 RS. 4,27,50,000/- AS MATURITY AMOUNT TOWARDS KEY MA N POLICY FROM LIC TAKEN BY ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.. ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF KEY MAN INSURANCE POLICY BE NOT BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSE SSEE REPLIED THAT AS PER THE POLICY RULES ISSUED BY THE LIC THE KEY MAN POLICY O NCE TRANSFERRED/ ASSIGNED BECOMES A NORMAL POLICY AND ENCASHMENT OF SUCH POLI CY, THE PROCEEDS RECEIPT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEP T THIS CONTENTION. HE OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE DETAILS COLLECTED FROM LIC REGARDIN G THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY, NOWHERE IT WAS MENTIONED AS SUCH. HENCE HE BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,27,50,000/-. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05. IT WAS ARGUED THAT BASED ON THESE ORDERS OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MATURITY AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT I DENTICAL ISSUE REGARDING TAXABILITY OF MATURITY VALUE OF KEYMAN POLICY WAS I NVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO. I T WAS STATED THAT THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 468/DEL/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.7.2009 HAD RES TORED THE APPEAL TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECT IONS:- WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION AND DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA. THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF TR IBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF RAJAN NANDA PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO ENABLE HI M TO DECIDE THE ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 3 MATTER AFRESH AS PER DIRECTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS GIV EN THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LI BERTY TO SUBMIT THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION WITH REGARD TO THE BONUS AMOUN T ON PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER ALL CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS THAT MAY BE ADVANCES BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, AND HE SHALL PASS A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN HAND. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFI CATION, AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT, HAS GIVEN EFFECT AS EXACTLY SAME MANNER AS WAS GIVE N IN A.Y.RS. 2003-04 AND 2004- 0-5 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT FACTS BE ING IDENTICAL FOR THIS YEAR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA Y BE DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. THEREAFTER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE WAS EXACTLY IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SH. RAJAN NANDA. HE REPRODUCED CERTAIN PORTION OF HIS ORDER IN THE C ASE SH. RAJAN NANDA FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THEREAFTER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 5.3.1 THUS, IN THE CASE OF DR. NARESH K. TREHAN ALSO THE SAME DECISION HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AS THE ISSUE AND FACTS ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL. THUS THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO TAX THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,27,50,000/- RECEIVED ON MATU RITY AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE HELD. ON THE O THER HAND THE APPELLANTS ACTION OF TREATING ENTIRE AMOUNT A S EXEMPT ALSO CAN NOT BE APPROVED. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE E HIRC HAS PAID EFFECTIVELY RS. 1,80,41,722/- AS PREMIUM (RS. 2,11,35,660/- MINUS RS. 30,93,338/-) OUT OF TOTAL P REMIUM OF ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 4 RS. 3,17,02,590/- WHEREAS AMOUNT RECEIVED ON MATURI TY BY THE APPELLANT IS RS. 4,27,50,000/-. BASED ON THE DECI SION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA (SUPRA), THE AMOUNT TA XABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS RS. 2,43,28,726/- WH ICH HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AS UNDER:- 4,27,50,000 X 1,80,41,722 3,17,02,590 5.3.2 THIS (RS. 2,43,28,726/) IS THE AMOUNT CONSTIT UTING THE SUM PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD WHEN IT WAS KEYMAN INSURAN CE POLICY IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 4,27,50,000/- RECEIVED O N MATURITY AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA FOR A.Y. 2003-04. THE REMAINING AMOUNT O F RS. 1,84,21,274/- IS TO BE TREATED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(10D ). THUS APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 1,84,21,274/- ON THIS GROUND. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FACT OF THE CASE BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HE ARD TOGETHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME RATIO AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NA NDA BE FOLLOWED. 7. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA IN ITA NO. 922/DEL/2010 VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 04/06/2010, WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 7. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEAR (2003-04). T HE TRIBUNAL HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT THE TOTAL RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON MATURITY EXCEPT FOR THE SUM EQUIVALENT TO THE SURRE NDER VALUE OF THE POLICY AT THE TIME OF ITS ASSIGNMENT BY THE COMPANY IN ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 5 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE. HENCE THE TRI BUNAL HAD DIRECTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE S URRENDER VALUE HAVING BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR, WAS THERE FORE, DIRECTED TO BE TAXED PRESENTLY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE MATURITY VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED POLICY AS REDUCED BY THE SURRENDER VALUE OF THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT BY THE COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASESSEE IS NOT TO BE TAXED. 7.1 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE TRIBUNAL HAD REFERRED TO T HE FOLLOWING PORTION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE KEYMAN POLIC Y AND OBSERVED THAT:- WE FOUND THAT PAGE 72 OF THE KEYMAN POLICY PROVID ED TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO TAXATION ASPECT OF THE KE YMAN INSURANCE POLICY, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- TAXATION ASPECTS: PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE COMPANY: 1) CORPORATE ENTITIES CAN CLAIM THE PREMIUM PAID UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE AS A BONA FIDE BUSINESS DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2) AS PER THE FINANCE ACT, 1996 THE AMOUNT RECEIVED U NDER A KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY WILL NOT BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX AS P ER SECTION 10(10D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PROCEEDS OF TH E POLICY WILL BE TREATED AS INCOME U/S 28(VI) OF THE ACT. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEYMAN: 1) IN THE EVENT OF THE POLICY BEING ASSIGNED TO THE KE YMAN, THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY INCLUDING BONUS WILL BE TREATED AS P ROFITS IN LIEU OF SALARY UNDER SECTION 17 (CLAUSE 3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. 2) IN THE EVENT OF A DIRECTOR BEING THE ASSIGNEE UNDER THE KEYMAN POLICY. IT WILL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY (SECTION 56(2IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 6 THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE PREMIUM PAID I S ALLOWED AS A BUSINESS DEDUCTION AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED SHOULD B E TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US) 7.2 THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE CONTRADI CTORY LETTERS RECEIVED FROM THE LIC. THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT IN THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE BASIC FEATURES OF ORIGINAL TERMS A ND CONDITIONS WHILE IN THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IT WAS S TATED THAT AFTER ASSIGNMENT THE KEYMAN POLICY WILL BE TREATED AS ORD INARY INDIVIDUAL POLICY. AFTER ELABORATE DISCUSSION AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION THE TRIBUNAL FINALLY CONCLUDED A S UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR CONTRADICTION IN THE TWO LETT ERS ISSUED BY THE LIC, ONE HAND WRITTEN DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ONE TO THE DEPARTMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GE TTING CLARIFICATION FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES OF LIC WITH REGARD TO C ORRECT STATUS OF KEYMAN POLICY ON THE OCCASION OF ASSIGNMENT AND CON SEQUENTIAL TREATMENT OF TAXABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E, AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS A PPLICABLE TO THE KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY ON ASSIGNMENT TO THE KEYM AN. AFTER GETTING THE CLEAR POSITION IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY LIC, THE KEYMAN POLICY IS C ONVERTED INTO ORDINARY POLICY, THEN TO FOLLOW THE OBSERVATION OF COORDINATE BENCH AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT AMOUNT OF LOANS AND INTEREST THEREON AS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE POLICIES WILL NOT EFFECT THE MAT URITY VALUE OF THE POLICY, WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED ALONGWITH AMOUNT OF BONUS THEREON, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET. AC CORDINGLY, ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING THE NET AMOUNT RECEIVED F ROM LIC AFTER DEDUCTION OF LOAN AND INTEREST THEREON AS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE POLICIES ARE NOT CORRECT. 7.3 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT TRIBUNAL H AD DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD MAKE ENQUIRY AND EXAM INE THE ISSUE INTER-ALIA AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICAB LE TO THE KEYMAN ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 7 POLICY ON ASSIGNMENT TO KEYMAN. LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN ORDER FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06. IN THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT LIC HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICIES WHICH WERE LATE R ON ASSIGNED IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAJAN NANDA ON 25.08.1998 WAS TO BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY INDIVIDUAL POLICY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAXATION THE SURRENDER VALUE OF THE PO LICY AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT BY THE COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON THIS ASSESSING OFFICERS OR DER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AS THE SAME IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER O F APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.4 NOW IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNALS ORDER IN PRINCIPLE, BUT AS FAR AS THE Q UANTIFYING THE AMOUNT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, HE MADE IS OWN COMPUTATI ON ON FOLLOWING LINES. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HAS OPINED THAT THE SURRENDER VALUE IS TO BE COMPUTED A S PER THE RATIO BETWEEN THE PREMIUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE C OMPANY, TO THE FINAL MATURITY PROCEEDS, THIS IS TO BE THE BASIS FO R ARRIVING AT THE PORTION WHICH IS TAXABLE AND THAT WHICH IS NOT TAX ABLE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OP INION THAT TO THE EXTENT THE MATURITY VALUE BEARS A RATIO TO THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE COMPANY, THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS SURRENDER VALUE AND THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT RECEIVED IS TO BE TAXED AND ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS WHICH BEARS A RATIO TO THE P REMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PROCEEDS OF AN OR DINARY POLICY AND NOT TAXED. 7.5 NOW WE FIND THAT SURRENDER VALUE AS PER THE TER MS APPLICABLE IN INSURANCE POLICY AND INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS THE VALU E WHICH IS RECEIVED ON PREMATURE SURRENDER. WE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE IMPUG NED KEYMAN POLICIES DO NOT HAVE A PROVISION OF PREMATURE SURRE NDER AND HENCE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY QUESTION OF SURRENDER VALUE. ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 8 WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE EARLIER. WE A LSO NOTE THAT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESS EE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE GIVEN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THAT GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. HE NCE, ADHERING TO THE DOCTRINE OF STAIRE DECISES, WE FOLLOW THE RATIO EMA NATING OUT OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH IS THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HA D CONSIDERED THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISIONS AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY, AS REGAR DS THE PROVISION APPLICABLE IN THE EVENT OF POLICY BEING ASSIGNED. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO NOTED THAT LIC HAD GIVEN CONTRADICTORY STATEME NTS IN LETTER ISSUED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THAT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WITH THE SAME DIRECTION AS FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GETTING CLARIFICATION FROM HIGHER AUT HORITIES OF LIC WITH REGARD TO CORRECT STATUS OF KEYMAN POLICY ON THE OC CASION OF ASSIGNMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL TREATMENT OF TAXABILIT Y IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEYMAN INSURANCE POLIC Y ON ASSIGNMENT TO THE KEYMAN. AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE KEYMAN POLICY IS CONVERTED INTO AN ORDINAR Y POLICY, THEN HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE OBSERVATION OF COORDINATE BENCH A S IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICA L, WE REMIT THE ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILES OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER IT AFRE SH WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO. 934/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 9 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/06/2010. SD/- SD/- [RAJPAL YADAV] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 04/06/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR,ITAT, DELHI BENCHES