M/s Gangol Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Meerut v. ITO, Meerut

ITA 143/DEL/2011 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14320114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAAG0147K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 143/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s Gangol Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Meerut
Respondent ITO, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 11-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 03-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 03-11-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 10-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH I DELHI ] BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN AM I. T. APPEAL NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 200304 2004-05 2005-06 & 20 06-07. M/S. GANGOL DUGDH UDPADAK SAKHARI SANGH LTD. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER P A R T A P U R VS. [ T D S & SURVEY ]; D E L H I R O A D M E E R U T. M E E R U T. P A N / G I R NO. AAA AG 0147 K. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. K. GARG ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. K. MONGA SR. D. R. ; O R D E R. P E R B E N C H : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARISE OUT OF COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) MEERUT. THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE YEARS RELATES TO CREATING DEMAND OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194-H AND TCS IN RESPEC T OF COMMISSION SALE OF SCRAP AND SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES AND CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND COLLECT THE MILK FROM MEMBERS AND MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTS AND 2 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 SELLS THEM UNDER THE BRAND NAME PARAG. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 6/12/2006 DURING WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE RETAILER STOCKIEST. THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUIRED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF COMMISSION ON SALE FOR LAST FOUR YEARS AND DETAILS OF SCRAP SOLD FOR T HE AFORESAID PERIOD. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID COMMISSION BUT HAD SUPPLIED THE MILK WHICH WAS TO BE SOLD BY THE RMO TO THE STOCKI EST AND THEN TO THE RETAILERS. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SELLS THE GOODS ON FIXED PRICE THROUGHOUT I NDIA AND THE SELLING RATE OF SOCIETY WAS FIXED BY PCDF LUCKNOW AND RATES OF RMO STOCKIEST AND RE TAIL TRADERS WERE ALSO FIXED ON WHICH THE GOODS WERE SOLD BY EACH CONSTITUENTS. THUS THE PRI CE CHARGED ON THE SALE OF RMO CONSISTS OF THE BASIC PRICE PLUS THE MARGIN OF RMO OFFICE AND DID N OT CONSTITUTE COMMISSION BUT THE DIFFERENCE OF SALE PRICE OF RMO AND COST OF SALE TO THE ASSES SEE. THE GOODS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE REGIONAL OFFICE THE SUBSIDIARIES OF PCDF. THIS REPLY OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION TO THE RETAILER STOCKIEST ON MILK PRODUCTS FOR THE SALE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR TH E RELEVANT PERIODS IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENSES TOWARDS COMMISSION EXPENSES AT RS.53 37 662/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND SCRAP SOLD DURING THE YEAR WAS OF RS.15 07 376/ -. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 THE COMMISSION PAID IS AT RS.35 88 073/- AND SALE OF SCRAP AT RS.1 0 35 104/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SOLD EUCALYPTUS TREES IN THIS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.7 13 558/-. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO THE RETAILERS/STOCKIEST OF RS.34 16 997/- AND SALE OF SCRAP AT RS.13 68 366/-. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 THE COMMISSION PAID WAS A T RS. 30 78 455/- AND SALE OF SCRAP WAS AT RS.19 21 366/-. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX ON COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 5 PER CENT AND SALE OF SCRAP AT THE RATE OF 1 PER CENT. AS REGARDS SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 THE AO DETERMINED TAX PAYABLE AT THE RATE OF 2 PER CENT. THE AO LEVIED SURCHARGE AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1) IN RESPECT OF THE TAX TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE / COLLECTED AT SOURCE. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUB SECTION (6A) OF SECTION 206-C WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 2007. THEREFORE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE CREATED DEMAND FOR TCS PRIOR TO 1/04 /2007. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE TAX COLLECTION ON SCRAP BE CAUSE THE AO HIMSELF HAS ASSESSED THE RATE AT 1 3 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 PER CENT. THE DISPUTE HOWEVER WAS WHETHER THE IT EMS SOLD WERE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP AS EMBODIED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP I N THE EXPLANATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE WORD SCRAP MEANS WASTE AND SCRAP FROM MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT USABLE AS SUCH. THEREFORE THOSE SCRA P WHICH ARE THE OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND NOT USABLE AS SUCH ARE COVERED. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE OLD BOXES DRUMS CARTONS POLY-BAGS ETC. HAVE BEEN SOLD WHICH WERE NOT FROM THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THEREFORE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 206C UNDER SCRAP. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED ONE HEAD OF COMMISSION AND SCRAP. THE A O SEPARATELY ASSESSED COMMISSION SCRAP AND SALE OF TIMBER UNDER THE HEAD SALE OF EUCALYPT US TREES. THE ORDER OF TDS COULD NOT BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 206-C BUT ONLY UNDER SECTION 201(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE BIFURCATION OF EACH HEAD WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D THE AO HAS ASSESSED ALL THE THREE HEADS SEPARATELY BY A COMMON ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION20 6C. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE NO ORDER COULD BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 206C FOR DEFAULT PRIO R TO 1/04/2006 AND NO ORDER COULD BE PASSED FOR TDS DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 206C BECAUSE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TDS DEFAULT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA & BREWERAGES 293 ITR 226 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE DEDUCTEE H AD PAID TAX AND FILED THE RETURN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY BE MADE TO P AY INTEREST ON THE SHORT-FALL. 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDEPENDENTLY WORKING AS C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WORKING UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF PRADESHIK CO-OP. DAIRY FU ND [PCDF] AND WAS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO USE ITS BRAND NAME PARAG. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TH E BUSINESS OF COLLECTING MILK FROM ITS MEMBERS PURIFYING IT PARTLY CONVERTING IT INTO MI LK PRODUCTS AND THEN SUPPLYING THEM TO RETAILER STOCKIEST. THE SALE PRICE OF THESE GOODS WAS FIXED BY PCDF AND THE RETAILERS THE STOCKIEST EARN INCENTIVE / COMMISSION ON THE SALES ACHIEVED. THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 SHOWED THAT THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF R S.53 37 662/- HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID. THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION INCLU DES SUCH AS ROYALTY RATE DIFFERENCE HANDING LOSSES ETC. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE SAME BY MEANS OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RETAILER/ STOCKIEST WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN THEM AS IT 4 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 WAS BEING MADE OUT TO BE A CLEAR CASE OF PAYMENTS O THER THAN COMMISSION. LD CIT (A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DETAILS AND SUNDRY SUB HEADS WERE C REATED TO DETRACT ATTENTION FROM THE MAIN ISSUE. THE FACT REMAINED THAT IN ITS AUDIT REPORT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.53 37 662/- AS COMMISSION PAID. NO DETAILS WERE EVER MADE AT T HE FIRST STAGE AS WELL. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED AN Y TAX AT SOURCE ON THIS AMOUNT. HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY TAKEN THE FIGUR E OF COMMISSION PAID AND SHOWN TAX DUE AT THE RATE OF 5 PER CENT AND SURCHARGE HAS ALSO BEEN CORRECTLY COLLECTED ON TOTAL TAX OF TDS AND TCS. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAD C ORRECTLY BROUGHT OUT THE DEFICIENCY IN TDS. HOWEVER HE HAD FAILED TO RECORD SECTION 201(1)(A). THE LD. CIT (A) INVOKING HIS POWERS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE BAD AND A R ECOURSE TO SECTION 292-B HAS TO BE TAKEN IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS VAL ID AND DEEMED TO BE READ AS PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 206 AND 201(1A) . 5. AS REGARDS THE TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE ON SCRAP THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT SECTION 206C(1) APPLICABLE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2002- 03 WAS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS (I) TO (IV) OF THE TABLE AND SCRAP BEING ABSENT FROM THIS LIST THER E WAS NO MANDATE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COLLECT TAX ON SCRAP. THE WORD SCRAP WAS INSERTED IN THE TAB LE FOR THE FIRST TIME BY FINANCE ACT 2003 AND THE RATE OF TAX WAS PRESCRIBED AT 10%. HOWEVER SO ON THEREAFTER THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003 SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM 8/9/2003 AND ACCORDINGLY TAX ON SCRAP THEREAFTER TO BE COLLECTED AT 1 PER CENT. THAT BEI NG THE LEGAL POSITION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN TAKING TO TASK THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT COLLEC TING TAX UNDER SECTION 206C(1) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER UPHELD THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 2005-06 AND 2006-07. AS REGARDS THE COLLECTION OF TAX ON SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS OF SELLING TREES AND IT WAS A SELF GENERATED PRODUCT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLINED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C(1) CAST A RESPONSIBILITY ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY OF A SELLER. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 6. AS REGARDS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A ) THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAD PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 206-C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TDS AMOUNT WHICH CANNOT BE DONE BEFORE 1/04/2007. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION INCLUDES OTHER IT EMS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO TAX IS COLLECTED AT SOURCE ON SALE OF SCRAP AS THEY ARE NO T THE OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SALE OF SCRAP CONSISTS OF THE OLD DRUMS POLY-PACKS COR RUGATED BOX PLASTIC CRATES FIRE-WOOD AND OTHER MATERIAL. SINCE THEY ARE NOT OUTCOME OF MANUFACTUR ING PROCESS THE TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED ON SALE OF SCRAP MATERIAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 206(6-A) FOR COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF SCRAP WERE INSERTED WITH EF FECT FROM 1/04/2007 AND THEREFORE NO TAX AT SOURCE CAN BE COLLECTED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SCRAP AND EUCALYPTUS TREES PRIOR TO 2007-08. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206-C OF THE A CT CANNOT BE INVOKED PRIOR TO 1/04/2007 AS CLAUSE (HB) BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 246A WITH EFFE CT FROM 1/04/2007. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT DEDUCTI BLE AS TAX THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206 ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE THE AO HAS WRONGLY P ASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 206-C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT WHICH TDS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206 ARE APPLICABLE FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WITH EFFECT FROM 1/04/2007 THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 206(6A) HAS BEEN MADE APPEALABLE UNDER SECT ION 246A(HB) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTED THE MI STAKE BY DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 206 AS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 201(1)(A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS PROVISIONS WERE APPLICABLE. TH E LD. SR. DR THEREFORE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED OR DER UNDER SECTION 206-C IN RESPECT OF TDS / TCS. UNDER SECTION 194-H OF THE ACT TDS IS TO BE MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AT THE RATE OF 5 PER CENT WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SCRAP AND 6 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 EUCALYPTUS TREES PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TREATED THE PROVISIONS OF 201(1)(A) IN RESPECT OF T DS ON COMMISSION. IT IS A SETTLED LAW AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE 53 ITR 225 (SC) THAT POWERS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (A) UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE ACT HAS THE POWER TO CONFIRM RE DUCE ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. THE POWERS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) BEING CO-TERMINUS THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WRITING THE WRONG SECTION (206C) IN RESP ECT OF TDS PROVISIONS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CORRECTED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE IN RESPECT OF TDS PROVISIONS. 9. NOW COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE COMMISSION PAID INCLUDES VARIOUS OTHER ITEMS LIKE INCENTIVES RATE DIFFERENCE HANDL ING LOSSES COMMISSION AND OTHERS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMMIS SION SUBJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TDS IS NOT LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS. WE FIND NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER OTHER ITEMS OTHER THAN COMMISSION INCLUDED IN THE STATEMENT OF COMMISSION WILL BE LIABLE TO TDS. WE THEREFORE FEEL IT PROPER TO SE T ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER ALL THE ITEMS ARE LIABLE FOR TDS OR NOT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH A FTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS REGARDS TAX COLLECT ED AT SOURCE ON SALE OF SCRAP THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT TCS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICA BLE IN RESPECT OF SCRAP GENERATED FROM MANUFACTURE PROCESS. CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 206-C DEFINES THE TERM SCRAP AND MEANS WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHA NICAL WORKING OF MATERIAL WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH BECAUSE OF BREAKAGE CUTTING-UP WEAR AND OTHER REASONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAVE NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE SCRAP GENERATED WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF OLD DRUMS POLY FILM CORRUGATED BOX MATERIAL PLASTIC CRATES FIRE WOOD AND OTHER MATERIAL IS WASTE AND SCRAP FRO M THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF THE MATERIAL. SIMILARLY AS REGARDS THE SALE OF EU CALYPTUS TREES THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A TRADER OF FIRE WOOD / TI MBER AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206-C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT 7 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011 (A) AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C WERE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SCRAP GENERATED AND THE SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE SET ASIDE THE I SSUES CONTAINED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIO NS TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 11 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- [ DIVA SINGH ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH NOVEMBER 2011. * MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT. 8 I.T.A. NOS. 143 144 145 & 146 (DEL) OF 2011