Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad v. M/s. Alps Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 106/DEL/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACA7569D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 106/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad
Respondent M/s. Alps Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 07-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENC H BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM ITA NO.106 & 107/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-1 GHAZIABAD. V/S . M/S ALPS INDUSTRIES LTD. B-2 LONI ROAD INDUSTRIAL. AREA MOHAN NAGAR GAHZIABAD. [PAN NO.: AAACA 7569 D] APPELLANT (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI ANOOP SHARMA MANU K. GIRI AR REVENUE BY MRS. GEETMALA MOHNAMY DR DATE OF HEARING 22-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-11-2011 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED ON 07.01.2011 BY THE REVENU E AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 20 TH OCTOBER 2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) GHAZIABAD RAISE THE FOLLOWING SIMILAR GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AN ELECTRIC PANEL IS A N ENERGY SAVING DEVICE AND ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @80% WHEN AN E LECTRIC PANEL IS SIMPLY A DISTRIBUTION BOARD MEANT FOR DIVIDING ELEC TRICAL POWER INTO SUBSIDIARY CIRCUITS AND ITS MAIN FUNCTION IS TO DIS TRIBUTE ELECTRICAL CURRENT TO VARIOUS CIRCUITS WITHIN THE FACTORY PREM ISES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT ELECTRIC PANELS ARE IN THE NATURE OF SHUNT CAPACITORS AND SYNCHRON OUS CONDENSER SYSTEMS WHEN FUNCTIONS OF AN ELECTRIC PANEL ARE QU ITE DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF THE SHUNT CAPACITORS AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDE NSER SYSTEMS. 3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LEARNED CIT(A)ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A TRANSFORMER IS AN ENE RGY SAVING ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 2 DEVICE WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE TYPE OF TRANSFORME RS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE TRANSFORMERS ARE OF A NUMBER OF KINDS SUCH AS STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER STEP-UP TRANSFORMER RECTIFI ER TRANSFORMER AND THE LIKE AND ALL HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AND A RE USED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE TRANSFORMER AN ENERGY S AVING DEVICE WHEREAS IT WAS MEANT FOR TRANSFORMATION/CONVERSION OF THE RATIO OF VOLTAGE & CURRENT AS PER REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSE E AND IN THE PROCESS OF CONVERSION OF VOLTAGE & CURRENT THE TRA NSFORMER CONSUMES A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF ENERGY BECAUSE OF WH ICH THE QUANTITY OF OUTPUT ENERGY IS ALWAYS LESSER THAN THE INPUT ENERGY GIVEN TO THE TRANSFORMER. IN THIS WAY IT CONSUMES MORE ENERGY RATHER THAN BEING AN INSTRUMENT OF SAVING THE ENERG Y. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT AN ENERGY SAVING DEVICE SINCE THE PLANT MOISTENS THE YARN BECAUSE O F WHICH THE MACHINE RATHER BECOMES HEAVY IN RUNNING AND CONSUME S MORE ENERGY RATHER THAN SAVING IT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT AN ENERGY SAVING DEVICE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF QUOTED FROM THE INTERNET AS FURTHER QUOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 31 THEREOF IN PA RA THREE THAT THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANTS IN TEXTILE MILLS CONSUME ABOU T 15% TO 25% OF THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE MILL. IN THIS WAY THE HU MIDIFICATION PLANT MAY BE AN URGENT NECESSITY FOR A TEXTILE MILL BUT TO SA Y THAT IT IS ENERGY SAVER IS TOTALLY BASELESS. 2. SINCE SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THESE APPEA LS WERE HEARD SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF TOGETHER BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS FOR T HE AY 2006-07 ARE THAT E-RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF ` ` `42 91 168/- FILED ON 25 TH NOVEMBER 2006 AND BOOK PROFITS OF ` ` 25 71 88 970/- U/S 115JB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ( A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A COMPOSITE TE XTILE MILL BESIDES ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 3 MANUFACTURING THE WINDOW COVERING AND WOODEN FLOOR FLOORING ETC. A PERUSAL OF DEPRECIATION CHART OF THE HARIDWAR UNIT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @80% ON ELECTRICAL P ANELS TRANSFORMERS AND HUMIDIFICATION PLANT. TO A QUERY BY THE AO T HE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT ELECTRIC PANELS AND TRANSFORMERS WERE THE ELECTRICA L EQUIPMENTS COVERED UNDER ITEM E OF 8(IX) OF THE APPENDIX-I TO I.T. RU LES 1962. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE PANELS WERE CALLED AS CAPACITOR P ANEL AND WERE IN THE NATURE OF SHUNT CAPACITORS AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSE SYSTEMS AS LAID DOWN UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF E-ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS. A S REGARDS TRANSFORMERS THE AO NOTICED THAT IT WAS STEP DOWN TRANSFORMER. REGARDING HUMIDIFICATION PLANT THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THI S WAS COVERED UNDER CLAUSE A) & B) UNDER ITEM G OF 8(IX):ENERGY SAVING DEVICES IN THE SAID APPENDIX-1. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE EQUI PMENT IS COVERED IN ITEM (B) UNDER D:CO-GENERATION SYSTEM OF 8(IX) BE ING PARTLY IN THE NATURE OF VAPOR ABSORPTION REFRIGERATION SYSTEM. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ELECTRICAL PANELS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF SHUNT CAPACITORS AND SYNC HRONOUS CONDENSERS SYSTEMS AND THUS DID NOT FALL UNDER ITEM E OF (8) (IX)I.E ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. SIMILAR FINDINGS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF TRANSFORMERS AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO RESTRICTED TH E CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION TO NORMAL RATES FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DISALLO WED AN AMOUNT OF ` ` ` 1 18 50 448/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRI C PANELS AND ` ` `24 25 233/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON TRANSFOR MER. AS REGARDS HUMIDIFICATION PLANT THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: 13. THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF PLANT & MACHINERY WHICH IS USED IN YARN SPINNING MILLS AN D COTTON & TEXTILES MILLS. THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THI S PLANT IS TO GENERATE ARTIFICIAL HUMIDITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE STRENGTH OF YAM DURING ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THIS PLANT IS NOT REQUIRED I N THE MANUFACTURING UNITS OF YAM SITUATED AT COASTAL AREAS WHERE THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMIDITY IS SUFFICIEN T BY NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT THE CONTENTIO N OF ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 4 THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS EQUIPMENT IS COVERED UNDER 'ENERGY SAVING DEVICES' DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTANCE. FURTHER THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS EQUIPMENT USED AS (A) WET AIR OXIDATION EQUIPMENT FOR RECOVERY OF CHEMICA LS AND HEAT AND (B) MECHANICAL VAPOR RE-COMPRESSOR WITH THE PURPOSE OF ENERGY SAVING IS MISLEADING CONFUSING AND BEYOND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ABOVE PLANT & MACHINERY IS COVERED UNDER (B) (I.E. VAPOR ABSORPTI ON REFRIGERATION SYSTEM) OF D (I.E. CO-GENERATION SYST EM) OF 8(IX) (I.E. ENERGY SAVING DEVICES). THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS NOT USED AS VAPOR ABSORPTIO N REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENERGY SAVING. MOREOVER THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLANT DOES NOT ABSORB THE VAPOR RATHER IT CREATE MOISTURE AND INCREASE THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF RELATIVE HUMIDI TY IN THE AIR FOR THE PRODUCTION OF YAMS. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONVINCING HENCE REJECTED. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS COVERED UNDER (VIII) (I.E. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT) (A) (I.E. ELECTROSTATI C PRECIPITATION) OF 3 OF III (MACHINERY AND PLANT) OF DEPRECIATION TABLE OF I.T. RULES. THE ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATION SYSTEM IS A DEVICE WHICH IS USED TO SEPARATE / SEGREGATE SOLID MATERIAL FROM LIQUID BY WAY OF USING ELECTROSTATIC SYSTEM. THEREFORE THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS NOT AN ELECTROSTATIC PRECIP ITATION SYSTEM USED AS AN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVE PLANT & MACHINERY FLOATS THE MOISTURE IN THE AIR AND CONTROLS THE COTTON DUST AT THE SHOP FLOOR WHICH CREATES HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR SMOOTH WORKING IN THE SPINNING & WEAVING DEPARTMENT OF THE TEXTILE MI LL HAS ALSO GOT NO SUBSTANCE. THE FLOATING OF MOISTURE INCREASES RELATIVE HUMIDITY IN THE AIR AND THE DUST PARTICLES ATTRACTS THE MOISTURE AND ACCELERATE THE PROCESS OF CONDENSATION WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR HEALTHY BREATHING. A PERUSAL OF DEPRECIATION CHART OF SITE-IV UNIT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INSTALLED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A 'DUST COLLECT ION DEVICE' SEPARATELY TO CONTROL THE DUST WHERE THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS ALSO WORKING. HENCE AS 'TH E ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 5 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT IS FUNCTIONING AS 'AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT' IS NOT TENABLE BEING MISLEADING CONFUSI NG AND BEYOND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT COMES UNDER GENERAL CATEGORY O F THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION @ 15% WITH AN ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% IS ADMISSIBLE THEREON BEING A PART OF NEW PLANT & MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.6 91 14 775/- @ 40% (I.E. 50% OF 80%) OF RS. 17 27 86 938/-. OUT OF THE ABOVE DEPRECIATION OF R S. 3 02 37 714/- [@ 7.5% (I.E. 50% OF 15%) PLUS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 10% (I.E.50% OF 20%)] IS ALLOWED AND THE BALANCE OF RS.3 88 77 061/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TOWARDS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (L)(C) OF I. T. ACT 1961 ARE INITIATED. 4. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IN THE FORM OF OPINIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONS LIKE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER NORTHERN INDIA TEXTILE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION[NITRA] DEPARTMENT OF TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY IIT DELHI BESIDES INFORMATION DOWNLOAD ED FROM INTERNET AND ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE HONBLE ORISSA HIG H COURT IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. VS. CIT 268 ITR 130. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HAVING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN TERMS OF HIS LETTER DATED 5.10.2010 CONCLUDED IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRICAL PANELS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 8.5. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE SUBMITTED ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE' FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962 ALSO DO NOT CONTRADICT THE EXPERT OPINI ON/INTERNET INFORMATION REGARDING THE CONTROL PANEL BEING AN ENERGY SAVING DEVICE. 8.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM OF THE O PINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ELECTRIC PANELS C OME UNDER THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPREC IATION @ 15%. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT TECHNICAL PERSONS SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THAT THE ELECTRIC PANEL IS AN ENERGY SAVING DEVICE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 80% AND ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION @ 20% ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 6 OF THE ACTUAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSET IS PUT TO USE AFTER SEPTEMBER 2005 ONLY 50% OF THE DEPRE CATION IS ALLOWABLE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE COST OF ELECTRIC PANEL WHIC H INCLUDES COST OF OTHER CABLES/COPPER CABLES AND THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. IT HAS BE EN CLEARLY BIFURCATED THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSE OF RS.5 26 68 660/- A SUM OF RS.2 40 79 0251- PERTAINS TO THE COST OF CABLES/COP PER CABLES AND A SUM OF RS.62 84 0001- IS THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSE CAPITALIZED IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. THIS PART OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY IS THUS A GENERAL TYPE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 15% ONLY. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATI ON IN THIS RESPECT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERIOD OF MAC HINERY PUT TO USE AND THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS WORKED OUT AS FOLLOWS : TOTAL COST OF PANEL AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE: RS. 5 26 68 660/- LESS: COST OF CABLES/COPPER CABLES :RS. 2 40 79 025/- PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES : RS. 62 84 000/- RS.3 03 63 025/- COST OF PANEL FOR WHICH DEP. @ 80% IS ALLOWABLE: RS. 2 23 05 535/- CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION: 50% OF 80% OF RS. 2 23 05 5351- ` RS. 89 22 254/- 50% OF 150/0 OF RS. 3 03 63 0251- RS.`22 77 227/- ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS ALLOWED BY AO ` RS. 52 66 866/- TOTAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESS EE: RS.1 64 66 347/- DEPRECIATION AS ALLOWED BY THE AO : RS. 92 17 016/- RELIEF WORKED OUT UNDER THIS HEAD: RS.72 4 9 331/- THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND GIVE THE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 AS REGARDS DEPRECIATION ON TRANSFORMER T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 7 9.4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM OF TH E OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE T RANSFORMERS COME UNDER CATEGORY OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DEPRE CIATION @ 15% IS ADMISSIBLE. IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THE EXP ERT OPINIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE A.O . IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW 80% DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER WITH AN ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20%. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. O N THIS SCORE IS THEREFORE HEREBY DELETED. 4.2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 88 77 061/- TOW ARDS DEPRECIATION ON HUMIDIFICATION PLANT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE REFERRIN G TO OPINION INCLUDED IN LETTER DATED 18.3.2010 OF NITRA AND OPINION OF THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY IN IIT NEW DELHI BESIDES INFOR MATION AVAILABLE ON INTERNET AS ALSO DECISION IN CWT VS. OFFICER-IN-CHA RGE(COURT OF WARDS)PAIGAH 105 ITR 133(SC) CONCLUDED IN THE FOLLO WING TERMS: 10.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE OTHER MATTER AVAILABLE ON RECORD L AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT I S COVERED UNDER THE ENERGY SAVING DEVICE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 80%. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON THE HUMIDIFICATION PLANT AND THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20%. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS SCORE IS H EREBY DELETED.. 5. FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR THE AY 2006-07 TH E LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN THE AY 2 007-08 ALSO. 6. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINS T THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).AT THE OUTSET BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF SEVEN DAYS WH ILE A NUMBER OF REPORTS WERE CALLED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE AO ON THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1961 IT WOULD BE F AIR IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IN THE FORM OF OPINIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONS LIKE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER NORTHERN INDIA TEXTILE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION[NITRA] HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF T EXTILE TECHNOLOGY IIT ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 8 DELHI BESIDES INFORMATION DOWNLOADED FROM INTERNET . THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT REVEAL AS TO WHY THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT PLACED B EFORE THE AO WHILE THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LD. CIT (A) RECORDED ANY REASONS IN WRITING BEFORE ADMITTING THE AFORESAI D DETAILS/DOCUMENTS BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(2) OF THE IT RULES 1962. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A HURRIED MANNER IN A SHORT SPAN OF SEVEN DAYS WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LD. CIT(A) UNDERTOOK ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES NOR THE REMAND REPORT DATED 5.10.2010 INDICATES THAT THE AO UNDERTOOK ANY INDEPENDENT VER IFICATION IN RESPECT OF THE DETAILS COMPRISED IN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES ESPECIALLY WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES AGR EED THAT MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION BY THE AO WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW INTER ALIA AFTER MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES IN RELATION TO ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND OF COURSE AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6 IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF. 8. NO OTHER ARGUMENT OR PLEA WAS MADE BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ITA N OS.106 & 107 /DEL./2011 9 1. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-1 GHAZIABAD (U.P.). 2. M/S ALPS INDUSTRIES LTD. B-2 LONI ROAD INDL. AREA MOHAN NAGAR GHAZIABAD. 3. CIT(A)-1 GHAZIABAD. 4. CIT CONCERNED. 5. DR ITAT A BENCH NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI