Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New ... on 17 August, 2018
1 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014
In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi
Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And
Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member
ITA No. 4769/Del./2014
Assessment Year: 2011-12
DCIT, Circle 4(1), vs. Jagson International Ltd.,
New Delhi. 3rd Floor, Vandana Building,
11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi
PAN- AAACJ 2147A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Vijay Verma, CIT/DR
Respondent by Shri Rajiv Saxena and
Shri Ajit Kr. Jha, Advocates
Date of Hearing 06.08.2018
Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2018
ORDER
Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-18 New Delhi dated 30.06.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds :
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,78,40,423/- made by the AO on account of that the assessee has given interest free loans to its subsidiary company?2 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 49,54,769/- made by the AO on account of Section 14A.w.rule 8D?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 15,85,,719/- made by the AO on account of depreciation claimed being 40% on Aircraft as the Aircraft was currently not in use.?
4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 4,95,74,440/- made by the AO on account of unpaid operational charges to M/s ONGC.?
5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 90,89,065/- made by the AO on account of expenses claimed as previous year adjustment under the head Admn. & Other expenses?
6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 4,42,355/- made by the AO on account of provision of Gratuity?
7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 12,66,36,468/-
8. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income showing loss of Rs.39,56,19,757/- on 15.09.2011. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has given interest free loans to its subsidiary company M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. amounting to Rs.31,61,70,198/-. The assessee was required to explain as to why the proportionate interest 3 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014 should not be disallowed, as the assessee has incurred financial cost of Rs.26,99,16,661/- on loans taken of Rs.704.64 crores. In his reply, the assessee submitted that the advance was given to sister concerns, M/s. Jagson Airlines with which the assessee had closed its business relations and it held more than 2/3rd shares. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was unable to establish the commercial expediency for advancing interest free loans to sister concern. He also noted that the assessee could not produce documentary evidence to prove as to how the interest free funds was advanced to its sister concern and concluded that the interest bearing fund has been utilized for non-commercial activities. Therefore, he disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.37,94,023/- (12% of Rs.31,61,70,198/-).
3. On scrutiny of accounts, the Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had made investments of Rs.24,99,91,283/- on which the income earned was exempt. In this regard, the assessee was unable to differentiate that investment so made are not from common pool of funds. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer relying on some case laws, made disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D and calculated the disallowance of Rs.49,54,869/-.
4. The Assessing Officer further found from the schedule of fixed assets and depreciation that the assessee has claimed 40% depreciation on its Air Craft amounting to Rs.15,85,719/-. In this regard, the assessee submitted that presently, the Air Craft is not in running condition and also not fetching any income. The Air Craft is kept for sale, but no buyer was available despite all efforts. The assessee has not shown any income from operating of the aircraft.
4 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014Therefore, the depreciation claimed on the said aircraft was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.
5. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had claimed expenses of Rs.4,95,74,440/- on account of unpaid operational charges to M/s. ONGC. In this regard, the assessee submitted complete ledger account of such expenses. The assessee further submitted written reply, but the Assessing Officer was not convinced therewith. The Assessing Officer noted that no such expenses were debited in earlier years although business of the assessee remained the same with ONGC. He accordingly disallowed the entire operational charges claimed and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
6. It was further noticed that in the profit and loss account, the assessee had claimed expenses of Rs.90,89,065/- as previous years adjustment under the head administration and other expenses. The assessee was asked to file the details to justify these expenses, but the assessee stated that the expenditure stands incurred for the purpose of business, debited to administrative or other heads and so, the same are required to be allowed. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not discharge his obligation to explain the nature of expenses whether these expenses pertain to the current year or for previous year or the same were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. He, therefore, disallowed these expenditure.
5 ITA No. 4769/Del/20147. The Assessing Officer further found from the tax audit report of the assessee that the assessee had made provision for gratuity of Rs.6,42,335/-. On being asked to justify the same, the assessee explained as under :
"As regards to provision for gratuity it is submitted that the same is allowable in the year in concern only if paid before the due date of filing otherwise in the year in which it is actually paid under section 438 of the IT Act. The computation of income is prepared by the professionals in case it is not accounted for while calculating the profit the same may be disallowed now and the profit enhanced is already exempt under tonnage tax scheme so no tax effect would be on the assessee."
The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and he added the provision for gratuity into the income of the assessee.
8. It was also noticed that while computing the income as per section 115JB, the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.12,66,36,468/- as exempt u/s. 115VO. In this regard, the observation of the Assessing Officer is as under :
11. The assessee while working out income as per provision of Section 115 JB has claimed income from shipping unit of Rs.12,66.36,468/- and claimed as exempt as per section 115 VO. The issue of claim of the income as per tonnage system is old and has been dealt with in previous years. The facts are that in the A Y 2006-07, the assessee made an application in form no. 65 for exercising option for Tonnage Tax Scheme under section 115VP 1 115VR of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Add!. Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that the assessee's ship "Deepsea Matdrill" is not a ship but a drilling rig which is not covered under the definition of qualifying ships as the same is an offshore installation. It was also held that the ship was not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and assessee's main object of business was not carrying on the business of the operation of the ships It was also seen that the assessee did not have the license which was to be Issued by the Director General of Shipping under section 407 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.6 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014
On this issue the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT (A) who vide order dated 16.3.2007 in appeal no. 44/2006-07 allowed the appeal of assessee and directed the AO to consider the rigs as 'qualifying ships' under section 115VD of the Income Tax Act and allow its application for exercising option for tonnage tax scheme u/s 115VP/115VR of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue preferred an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT who has however vide order dated 20.112009 in ITA no. 2979/Del of 2007 dismissed the appeal of revenue Now the revenue has preferred an appeal before Hon'ble Delhi Court against the order of Hon'ble IT AT. Similar treatment was given in A. Y. 2007- 08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 also. During the year under consideration the appeal is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Based on the aforesaid facts, the claim of the assessee to treat shipping unit exempt is hereby rejected and same is added to the book profit for working out income under MAT as the matter is still sub-judice.
The income claimed as exempt in the computation of income for calculation of book profit as per MAT uls 115 va is accordingly not allowed to the assessee and an addition of Rs 12,66,36,468/- is made on this account.
Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs12,66,36,466/-.
9. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee and the order of the lower authority, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
10. The learned DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relying on the assessment order, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified to delete the impugned additions ignoring the cogent reasonings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for each and every additions made. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeal of the Revenue.
7 ITA No. 4769/Del/201411. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the submissions made before the authorities and also submitted that the issues involved in ground No. 1, 2, 3, & 5 are covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by various decisions of Tribunal in the cases of assessee itself for different assessment years. Regarding the issue involved in ground No. 4, i.e., regarding unpaid operational charges to M/s. ONGC of Rs.4,95,74,440/- it was submitted that claim of similar expenses was also made in A.Y. 2013-14 and the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on this score while making the assessment of assessee. He, therefore, submitted that the issues involved in this appeal of the Revenue are already settled by various orders and decisions in the cases of assessee itself and hence, the grounds raised in appeal of the Revenue are not tenable in the eye of law.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and we find that most of the issues involved in this appeal are covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of Tribunal and Delhi High Court.
13. As far as the first issue regarding disallowance of notional interest on interest free loans given to subsidiary company, we find that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 11th May, 2018. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under :
8 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014"12. Ground No. 1 by the Revenue reads as under :-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs.2,53,61,633/- on account of advancing of interest free loans to sister concern ?"
12.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has given interest free loans to its subsidiary company M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. of Rs.26,38,69,280/-. Since these funds are interest bearing in nature and the assessee has incurred financial charge of Rs.2,53,61,633/- the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.2,53,61,633/- to the total income of the assessee.
12.2 Before the learned CIT (Appeals) it was submitted that the assessee company holds more than 69% of the shares of M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. Since M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. suffered huge losses, therefore, in order to run this company the assessee company has advanced interest free loan to M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. It was submitted that out of three aircrafts of the airlines, two aircrafts were owned by the assessee company. In order to safeguard the interest of the assessee it was necessary to feed this company also. It was accordingly argued that the advance given by the assessee company was based purely on commercial expediency. The assessee further submitted that prior to taking loans from the bank for purchase of the vessels by the assessee company which had already advanced Rs.21,17,41,988.05 to M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. out of the interest free funds and reserves available with the assessee. During the impugned assessment year the assessee had advanced only Rs.5,21,27,291/- that too was given out of the profit of Rs.38.97 crores earned during the year. It was submitted that in the past no such disallowance was made. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhaswami Satsang Vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321 (SC), no disallowance should be made following the rule of consistency. Various other decisions were also brought to the notice of the learned CIT (Appeals).
12.3 Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the learned CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition by observing as under :-
"3.3 I have gone through the assessment order, written & oral submission of the appellant and materials available on record. In the instant case, during the year assessee advanced Rs.5,21,27,291.3 as interest free advance to its sister concern namely, M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. My attention was also drawn on the fact that prior to taking loan for the purchase of vessel the assessee company had already advanced Rs.21,17,41,988.5 to the Jagson Airlines Ltd. In support of his contention the appellant has enclosed Annexure 'A' in its paper book showing last 10 years transaction between the two companies. From the chart it is also clear that M/s Jagson International Ltd has also taken advance from Jagson Airlines Ltd for the business purposes whenever required. M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd has never charged any interest on such advances.9 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014
Further, it is also not in dispute that the assessee has incurred financial charges of Rs 2,53,61,633/- during the year under consideration. It is also seen from the Annexure 'B' that more than 69% shares in Jagson Airlines Ltd belong to the assessee company and assessee company also given its Aircrafts to M/s Jagson Airlines Ltd on lease.
3.4 I find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the interest on loans without recording Ist any finding to the effect that the loans on which interest was paid by the assessee was diverted by the assessee for providing interest free advances to its sister concerns. It is not the case that the interest free funds available with the assessee were not sufficient to advance interest free money in question to its sister concerns as the appellant company has shown a profit of Rs.38,97,52,337/- which was sufficient to advance the money to its sister concern. The Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the assessee company is a major investor in Jagson Airlines Ltd and they have long business relationship as the aircrafts belonging to the assessee company were run by M/s Jagson Airlines Ltd on lease basis in last so many years. In my considered view, the onus, which was on the Assessing Officer for making the disallowance by bringing on record some material to show nexus between interest free advance and interest bearing loans was not at all discharged by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, there is a business expediency and interest of the assessee company in M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd due to which loans were given by the assessee company. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer was on a wrong footing and unsustainable.
3.5 The decision relied upon by the appellant company also support the case of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 2009-TIOL-27-HC- MUM-IT where it was held that "if there are funds available both interest free and overdraft / or loan taken, then a presumption would arise that investment would be out of the interest free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds are sufficient to meet the investments. In the instant case, it is not the case of the assessee that interest expenditure should be allowed for interest free advance to its sister concerns were out of commercial expediency. Rather the case of the assessee is that the entire loan funds on which the expenditure of interest was incurred, were used in business and interest free advance was given out of own interest free funds. Thus, the decision relied upon by the assessee company squarely covered the case of the appellant as the appellant company had sufficient interest free funds to advance the money to its sister concern.
3.6 For the reasons given above I am of the considered opinion that disallowance made is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. As a result this ground of appeal is allowed."
12.4 Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (Appeals) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
12.5 The learned Departmental Representative strongly objected to the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 10 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014 of Addl. CIT Vs. M/s. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. vide order dated 30th April, 2012 has held that the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 needs reconsideration. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 324 ITR 396 (Del.) he submitted that the onus is on the assessee to establish the commercial expediency. He submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) in para 4.4 of his order has shifted this onus to the Assessing Officer regarding the establishment of nexus between interest free funds and amount of advance which is not correct. Without prejudice to the above he submitted that the profit accrues on the last day of the financial year and cannot be a source of loan advanced during the year. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) not being in consonance with law should be reversed.
12.6 The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). He submitted that when the interest free funds available with the assessee are sufficient to advance interest free loan to the sister concerns, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 2009-TIOL-27- HC-MUM-IT, no disallowance is called for.
12.7 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. The findings given by the learned CIT (Appeals) that the interest free funds available with the company were sufficient to advance interest free advance could not be controverted by the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that if the interest free funds are sufficient to make the investment the presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest free funds generated or available with the company if the funds are both interest free and interest bearing funds. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee company had already advanced Rs.21,17,41,988.5 prior to taking loan for purchase of vessels and assessee company has advanced interest free loan of Rs.5,21,27,291/- during the year whereas it has earned profit of Rs.38,97,52,337/- during the year. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the learned CIT (Appeals) we find no infirmity in his order. Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed."
There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of co- ordinate Bench in the case of assessee itself, ground No. 1 of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.
11 ITA No. 4769/Del/201414. Adverting to the next issue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s. 14A, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) on this score. This issue is also covered by the aforesaid decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 as under :
13. Ground of appeal No. 2 by the Revenue reads as under :-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting disallowance of the Rs.13,83,209/- under section 14A rw Rule 8D
(iii)?"
13.1 After hearing both the sides we find that the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowed an amount of Rs.13,83,209/- being expenditure incurred for investments made, the dividend income of which is exempt.
13.2 In appeal the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing as under :-
"4.4 I have gone through the record and perused the material available on record. I find that similar issue arose in Assessment Year 2008-09 dealt by my predecessor and also by me in Assessment Year 2009-10 in appeal No 400/2011-12. The AR of the appellant has produced a copy of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in ITA No 1395/2010 in assessee's own case wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court has held that the assessee possess a Ship not a rig and thereby allowed the tonnage tax benefit. Respectfully following the jurisdictional high court decision in assessee's own case, I had allowed the appeal in Assessment Year 2009-10 following the same I hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.13,83,209/-. Since the appellant gets Tonnage Tax benefit under section 115VP / 115VR, the addition u/s 14A/Rule 8 D is not at all required. Thus, Ground No 2 is allowed."
13.3 Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (Appeals) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
13.4 After hearing both the sides we find the above ground raised by the Revenue is identical to ground of appeal No. 2 in ITA. No. 5915 (Del) of 2013. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Following similar reasoning, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed."
12 ITA No. 4769/Del/201415. The issues involved in ground No. 5 & 6 and ground No. 7 are also covered by the aforesaid decision of Tribunal who vide para 14.1 of its order for A.Y. 2010-11, after following its reasoning given in appeal of Revenue for 2008-09 dismissed the relevant ground of Revenue's appeal, held as under :
14.1 After hearing both the sides we find the above ground raised by the Revenue is identical to ground of appeal No. 2 in ITA. No. 4392 (Del) of 2011.
We have already decided this issue and the ground raised by the Revenue has been dismissed. Following similar reasoning, this ground by the Revenue is dismissed.
16. The relevant findings of the Tribunal appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 read as under :
2.6 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case vide ITA No.1395/2010 and ITA No.1289/2011 order dated 08.11.2012 by observing as under :-
"7. In the facts of this case the vessels were consistently registered under Section 407 of the Merchant Shipping Act and had a valid certificate which was produced for consideration by the appellate authority who sought remand report. It is also not disputed that the vessel is a qualifying ship for sea in terms of clause (a) of Section 115VD. The question as to whether it amounted to "off shore installations" was gone into in considerable detail by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that unlike in the case of off-shore installations which are stationed at one place, the very nature of the activity in which the assessee engaged is to carry out operations in different places; necessarily, at least for a short duration the vessel has to be stationed at one place. In these circumstances, Revenue's contentions that the vessel is nothing but "offshore installations" has no merit, in the case of Matdrills of die kind put to use by the assessee.
8. For these reasons the Court is of the opinion that the reasoning and findings of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. The substantial question of law is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeals are consequently dismissed."13 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014
2.7 Since the learned CIT (Appeals) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) allowing the ground raised by the assessee. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Not only this, the ld. CIT(A) has also decided these issues in A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 in favour of the assessee. The additions which have been challenged in ground No. 5 & 6 also deserve to be deleted in view of the fact that since the assessee gets tonnage Tax benefit u/s. 115VP/VR. Therefore, the additions of Rs.90,89,065 on account of administration and other expenses and Rs.4,42,355/- on account of provision for gratuity is not required at all. In view of above discussion, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions, challenged by Revenue by way of grounds Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of appeal.
17. The issue involved in ground No. 3 regarding deletion of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.15,85,719/- is also covered by the decision of Tribunal for A.Y. 2010-11 vide 15 to 15.1, which read as under :
"15. Ground of appeal No. 4 by the Revenue reads as under :-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.26,42,865/- being disallowance of depreciation on Aircrafts?"
15.1 After hearing both the sides we find the above ground is identical to ground of appeal No. 4 in ITA. No. 5915 (Del) of 2013. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Following similar reasoning, this ground is also dismissed.
14 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014From the above decision, it reveals that the Tribunal has followed its own decision in appeal of Revenue in the case of assessee itself for A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, ground No. 3 of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.
18. As regards the issue involved in ground No. 4 with respect to addition on account of disallowance of unpaid operational charges of Rs.4,95,74,440/-, we find that the assessee has filed the copy of ledger account of the said expenses debited to the profit and loss account, but the same have not been verified either by the AO or by the ld. CIT(A) so as to ascertain as to why ONGC has paid lesser amount as compared to the bills raised by the assessee. The AO has also observed that some payment might have related for the previous year, but it has been debited to the current year's profit and loss account. The assessee has not furnished any bill-wise reconciliation statement clarifying as to for how much amount the bills were raised and how much was actually received by the assessee from ONGC. It was also not explained, if there was any agreement with ONGC for payments lesser than the bill amounts. All these facts were to be examined by the ld. CIT(A) before deleting the addition, which has not been done. Accordingly, we think it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of AO for deciding the same afresh after ascertaining and verifying the above facts, mentioned in earlier part of this order. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the necessary evidence in support of its claim and as required by the AO. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being hears. Accordingly, this ground 15 ITA No. 4769/Del/2014 of appeal deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes.
19. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th August, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amit Shukla) (L.P. Sahu)
Judicial member Accountant Member
Dated: 17th August, 2018
*aks*
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Delhi Benches, New Delhi