M/s. Sybex Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 187/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 18720123 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN MPACT4709C
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number CO 187/DEL/2010
Appellant M/s. Sybex Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 16-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 20-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL I.T.A.NO.2354(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF M/S SYBEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 7(1) VS. PVT. LT D. 45 HARI NAGAR ASHARAM NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. C.O. NO. 187(DEL)/2010 ( ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.2354(DEL)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S SYBEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS DEPUTY COM MISSIONER OF INCOME PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI. VS. TAX CIRCLE 7(1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SRUJINI MOHANTY SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : S/SH RI ASHWANI TANEJA TARUN KUMAR & MS. POONAM ADVCATES ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ARGUED IN A CONSOLIDATED MANNER BY THE LD. DR AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE THINK IT FIT T O PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10 87 590/-. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U /S 143(2) ON 26.9.2007. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 7 42 92 822/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AS ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- SL. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (RS.) 1 BONUS 37 80 615/- 2 CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 6 00 671/- 3 EPF-EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION 65 77 940/- 4 ESI-EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION 11 05 490/- 5 H.R.A. 7 89 311/- 6 SALARY 6 14 38 795/- TOTAL 7 42 92 822/- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH VARIO US DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 23.10 .2008. AFTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IT WAS SUBMITTED ON 5.11.2008 THA T THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD MAINTAINED SUFFICIENT RECORD SUCH AS SAL ARY REGISTER PF AND ESI RECORDS ETC. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. H OWEVER THE RECORD OF THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED ON ACCOUNT OF AB SENCE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 7.11.2008. ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 3 ON THIS DAY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON MANPOWER EMPLOYED WHO WERE DEPUTED BY THE ASSES SEE AT THE OFFICES OF THEIR CLIENTS IN PURSUANCE OF THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO PROVIDE PLACEMENT AND MANPOWER TO THE CLIENTS. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE BILL IS RAIS ED ON THE CLIENTS AFTER ADDING A SMALL MARGIN OF PROFIT. MOST OF ITS CL IENTS ARE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. THE ATTENDANCE IS MARKED AT THE PLACE OF WORK. AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SALARY THE SIGNATURES ARE OBTAINED IN SALARY REGISTER WHICH WAS PRODUCED FOR CONSIDERATION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED. TH E AO NOTED FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES IN THE RECORDS:- (A) NEITHER REVENUE STAMPS PASTED NOR SIGNATURE OF THE EMPLOYEE WERE TAKEN SOME ON THE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST SALARY AND WAGES. COPY OF UNSTAMPED AND UNSIGN ED PAGES FOR EXAMPLE ARE MARKED AS ANNEXURE NO. A OF THIS ORDER. (B) SAME PERSON WITH THE NAME MAHENDRA HAS SIGNED AGAINST THE SALARY AND WAGES OF MORE THAN ONE EMPLOYEE. THE COPY BEARING IDENTICAL SIGNATURE BY AN INDIVIDUAL A GAINST VARIOUS EMPLOYEES ARE MARKED AS ANNEXURE NO. B OF THIS ORDER. (C) PAYMENTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES WITH THEIR SIGNATURE BUT WITHOUT REVENUE STAMPS. THE COPY OF SOME PAGES BEARING SIGNATURE BUT WITHOUT REVENUE STAMPS FOR EXAMPLE ARE MARKED AS ANNEXURE NO. C OF THIS ORDER. ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 4 2.2 IN VIEW OF THESE DISCREPANCIES THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND 20% OF THE ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 59 12 292/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE INCOME WAS CO MPUTED AS UNDER:- INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. RS. 1 59 12 292/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AS DECLARED RS. 1 16 729/- TOTAL: RS. 1 60 29 021/- ROUNDED OFF RS. 1 60 29 020/- 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE MOVED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN AUDITED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AS WELL AS U NDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE RECORDS MAINTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SALARY REGISTER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FROM W HERE SHE NOTED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES. HOWEVER THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE AO FOR HER REPORT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE ADMISSION OF FRESH EV IDENCE ALTHOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO IT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON MERITS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IS NOT THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT BUT ONLY A LIST OF EMPLOYEES WITH ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 5 INFORMATION. THIS AMOUNTS TO ADOPTION OF DILATO RY TACTICS AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE REJECTED. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE AO AND THEREFORE THE ORDER REQUIRES TO BE UPHELD. THE REMAND REPORT WAS FUR NISHED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT. AFTER CONSIDERI NG ALL THE FACTS THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MAJOR P ORTION OF THE REPORT SEEKS TO CANVAS THAT NO FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. THE EVIDENCE IS ONLY THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHICH CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWI NG ITEMS:- S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 1 APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES 162-164 2 LIST SHOWING PARTICULARS OF EMPLOYEES 165-420 3 DETAILS OF ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES 421-442 4 COPY OF PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE BY GOVERNMENT DE PARTMENT 443-446 5 COPY OF OFFICER ORDER OF GB PANT UNIVERSITY 447- 464 6 COPY OF ESI RETURN 465-466 7 COPY OF EPF INSPECTION REGISTER 467-469 8 COPY OF NOTIFICATION UNDER INDIAN STAMP ACT 470 9 COPY OF BANK CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UCO BANK & SBI PANT NAGAR. 471-491 10 COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER 492 11 COPY OF CONTRACT AWARDED 493-499 12 COPY OF CERTIFICATE U/S 197 500 13 DETAILS OF TDS CERTIFICATE 501-514 ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 6 3.1 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE MATTER F URTHER AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE NOW REQUIRES TO BE ADMITTED AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANT ED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND BY HER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO CONSIDERED THE MATERI AL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND FINALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PROPER R ECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSE S. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ADD-ON MARGIN I S QUITE LOW AND IN SOME CASES IT IS AS LOW AS 0.66% OF THE SALARIES PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OVERALL NET PROFIT OF 1.52% OF THE RECEIPTS. THIS RATIO IN EARLIER TWO YEARS WAS 1.02% AND 1.03%. THI S RATIO IN THE SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS WAS 1.37% AND 1.55%. THEREFORE HE CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE SERVICE CHARGES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE BEEN AS LOW AS 0.66% IN SOME CASES. IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT @ 1.52%. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE EARLIER TWO YEAR S THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE NET PROFIT RATIO AT 1.02% AND 1.03% FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO I.E. A.Y. 20 07-08 AND 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT 1 .37% & ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 7 1.55% RESPECTIVELY. THUS THE RATES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE BETTER OR COMPARA BLE TO THE RATES SHOWN IN ALL THESE YEARS. MOREOVER NO LEAKAGE OF REVENUE HAS BEEN DETECTED BY AO APART FROM CER TAIN MINOR SEEMING IRREGULARITIES AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOV E PARAS ALSO. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISTURB THE RESULTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND MAKE ESTIMAT ION OF INCOME. THE IRREGULARITIES DETECTED BY THE AO AR E NOTEWORTHY AND SHOW APPLICATION OF MIND BUT THESE SEEMIN G IRREGULARITIES HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND IN MY OPINION DO NOT WARRANT ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT ALL AND THAT TOO AT THE RATE OF 20% WHEN THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANTS TRADE OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN IN THE RANGE OF 1.02% TO 1.55%. IFIND THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 47 02 958/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER TO MEET THE END S OF JUSTICE I UPHOLD ONLY AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC AND DELETE THE BALANCE. HELD ACCORDINGLY. 3.2 BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APP EAL AGAINST THIS ORDER. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE GROUND TAKEN IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. IN VIEW THEREOF WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON MERITS. 4.1 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BEFORE THE AO WAS GENERAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE PROCEEDINGS HA D TRAVELED TO HIM FOR THE SECOND TIME. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD ALSO BEEN GRANTED IN THE COURSE ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 8 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO ORDER HAS BEEN PAS SED BY HIM IN WRITING ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE HIS ORDER IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE ALONE. THEREAFTER SHE REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 4.2 IN REPLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE BACKGROUND FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUPPLYING MA NPOWER TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. T HE MARK-UP ON THE BILLS RAISED IS A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE SAL ARIES PAID. THE SALARY REGISTER HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHO FO UND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES. HOWEVER THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REBUTTAL. THIS NECESSITATED THE FILI NG OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE REFERRED TO THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND IN WH ICH THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRESH AD JUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD. HIS CASE IS THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THESE REMARKS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE RECORDING MADE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT IN V IEW OF THE AFORESAID ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 9 REMARKS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCE TO CLARIFY THE POINTS RAISED BY THE AO AND THEREFOR E THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AO HAS B EEN GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ALL THE DETAILS. THEREFORE HIS CONT ENTION IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS RIGHTLY ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS). HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT:- (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH IT AS ON 31.3.2006 WITH DETAILS REGARDING EMPLOYEE-NAME FAT HERS NAME DESIGNATION AND THE ADDRESS; (II) IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT STATUTORY DUES SUCH AS PF AND ESI HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE SALARY AND PROOF THEREOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED; (III) SALARY MUSTER ROLL IN ORIGINAL HAS BEEN PROD UCED CONTAINING THE DETAILS SUCH AS TOKEN NUMBER NAME OF THE EMPLOY EE FATHERS NAME NUMBER OF DAYS OF WORKING CALCULATION OF SALARY A ND WAGES PLACE OF ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 10 WORK DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EPF ETC. MODE OF PAYMENT AND SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON; (IV) THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN R ESPECT OF 1853 EMPLOYEES; (V) THE LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM MANPOWER HAS BEEN SUPPLIED HAS BEEN FURNISHED; AND (VI) COPY OF EPF INSPECTION REGISTER HAS BEEN PROD UCED. 4.3 IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT REVENUE STAMP HAS BEEN AFFIXED WHEREVER REQUIRED BUT THERE ARE CASES WHERE STAMP WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW SALARY. THE SALARY AND WAGES PAYABLE TO SHRI RAVINDER ROHTALA AND SHRI N.C. TEWARI WERE PAID TO SHRI M AHENDER AS HE WAS DULY AUTHORIZED IN THIS BEHALF. WHERE SALARY WA S PAID BY TRANSFER TO THE BANK ACCOUNT THE SIGNATURE WAS NOT TAKEN. 4.4 HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE RATIO OF NET PROFI T OF EARLIER YEARS MENTIONED ON PAGE NO. 28 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WAS 1.02% AND ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 11 1.36% AGAINST 1.52% OF THIS YEAR. IT IS CONTEN DED THAT EVEN IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE TO BE REJECTED THE PROFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY TAKING RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN SUCH MATTER THE BOOK RESULTS OF EARLIER YEARS BECOME OF SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE. THE BOOK RESULTS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE ALSO ACCEPTED WHICH ARE I N LINE WITH THE BOOK RESULTS OF THIS YEAR. 4.5 IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT THE AO DID NOT CONFRONT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DISCREPANCIES NOT ICED BY HER IN THE DETAILS OF SALARY. THE SALARY REGISTER WAS PRODUCED B EFORE HER. WE HAVE ALREADY NARRATED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILE D BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). VARIOUS EVIDENCES ARE IN SUPPOR T OF THE SALARY REGISTER. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RIGHTLY ADMITTE D THIS EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT. ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 12 5.1 COMING TO THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE AO U NDER THREE DIFFERENT HEADS THE SAME STAND EXPLAINED BY THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT- (I) SIGNATURES WERE NOT TAKEN AND REVENUE STA MPS WERE NOT AFFIXED IN CASE OF PAYMENT MADE DIRECTLY BY CREDIT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT; (II) SALARY OF TWO PERSONS WAS PAID TO MAHENDER AS HE WAS DUL Y AUTHORIZED IN THE MATTER AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE WORKING IN THE PREMISES OF THE CLIENTS; (III) REVENUE STAMP WAS NOT AFFIXED WHERE IT W AS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED UNDER THE RULES. THEREFORE THE DISCREPAN CIES MENTIONED BY THE AO STAND EXPLAINED. 5.2 OTHERWISE THE NET PROFIT RATIO IN THIS YEA R IS BETTER THAN NET PROFIT RATIO OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. T HE REASON OF LOW RATIO IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SMALL MARK-UP ADD ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SALARY PAYABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES DEPUTED TO WORK WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS WHERE THE COMPETITION IS TOUGH. IN ANY CASE THE REVENUE HAS ALSO ACCEPT ED THE ASSESSEES CASE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN VIEW THEREOF WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF O F RS. 1 46 02 958/-. ITA NO. 2354 & C.O. NO. 87(DEL)/10 13 5.3 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJ ECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALSO CANNOT BE UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND T HE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 25TH MARCH 2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: M/S SYBEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1) NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR.