ITO, Ward-1(2),, v. Khacheru (HUF),,

ITA 2908/DEL/2003 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 290820114 RSA 2003
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2908/DEL/2003
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward-1(2),,
Respondent Khacheru (HUF),,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 02-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-02-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 30-05-2003
Judgment Text
ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 1 IN THE INCOMETAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/2003 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5) VS. SH. KHACHERU (HUF) WARD-2 FARIDABAD AHIRWARA BALLABGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA SR. DR O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE CONNECTED AND THE APPEALS W ERE HEARD TOGETHER HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 3. THIS APPEAL HAD EARLIER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNA L. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2007 HAS NOTED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 2 THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY CONSISTING OF ONE KHACHERU AS THE KARTA HIS WIFE CHAMELI DEVI AND THEIR TWO SONS RAMCHAND AND RANBIR. THERE WAS A PARTIAL PARTITION ON 18.6.199 8. THE PARTITION DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 19 TH JUNE 1998. THE MONEY LYING IN THE BANK FIXED DEPOSITS ETC. AS WE LL AS THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE DEPOSITS WERE PARTITIONED A MONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. THE PARTITION DEED NARR ATES THAT THE TOTAL OF THE BANK DEPOSITS AND FDRS WAS RS . 78 00 944/- AND THIS AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY TH E JOINT FAMILY ON ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LANDS HELD B Y IT IN THE YEAR 1991. IT APPEARS THAT THE NOTICES FOR RE-ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.10.1998 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1997 -98 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RETURNS WERE FILED ON 25.3.199 9. PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL THE YEARS NAMELY 1994-95 TO 1 998- 99 WERE MADE ON 28.9.2000 UNDER SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL I.E. 1999-2000 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN ON 27.11.2000 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 148 ON 11.9.2000. IT APPEARS THAT INTEREST OF RS . 18 12 670/- ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THOUGH THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED IN THE RETURN ON THE ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 3 GROUND THAT THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INTEREST HAD NOT BECOME FINAL AS THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS DISPUTED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 4 19 543/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHICH REPRESENTED INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS AN D SAVINGS ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE HUF. IN THE COUR SE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL INCOME-TA X RETURNS AS THE BANK DEPOSITS HAD BEEN PARTITIONED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THIS AS A CLAIM OF PARTIA L PARTITION AND INVOKING SECTION 171(9) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I NSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 1980 W.E.F. 1.4.1980 HE LD THAT THE PARTIAL PARTITION CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED AND THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 4 19 543/- MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY HE BROUGHT TH E SAME TO TAX. 2. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON BOTH THE GROUNDS NAMELY THE ASSESSMENT O F THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEREST ON THE BANK DEPOSITS FD RS ETC. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE INTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSAT ION ON RECEIPT BASIS. THAT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE IT IS NO ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 4 LONGER IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. AS REGARDS THE INTERE ST ON THE FDRS AND THE BANK DEPOSITS THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SECTION 171 IS APPLICAB LE ONLY TO A HUF WHICH WAS HITHERTO ASSESSED AS UNDIVIDED AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS COMPLETED ON 28.9.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 199 4-95 TO 1998-99 THE SECTION WOULD APPLY ONLY THEREAFTER AND SINCE IN THE ASSESSES CASE PROCEEDINGS FOR RE-ASSE SSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAD BEEN INITI ATED ON 11 .9.2000 WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PASSI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 T O 1998-99 THE NOTICE CANNOT BE PROCEEDED WITH AND TH E FAMILY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN RESPECT OF THE INTERES T OF RS. 4 19 453/- ON THE BANK DEPOSITS FDRS ETC. THE CIT (A) ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE ANY CLAIM OF PARTIAL PARTITITON. HE ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 17 1 (9) WOULD HAVE HAD APPLICATION TO THE CASE ONLY IF THE HUF HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX PRIOR TO 18 TH JUNE 1998 WHICH IS THE DATE OF PARTIAL PARTITION. HE THUS DELETED THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4 19 453/-. 3. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS THA T THE CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HUF HAD NOT BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX WHEN THE ASSESSMENT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1998-99 HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON 28.9.2000 WHICH DATE WAS MUCH PRIOR TO 23.3.2001 WHICH IS THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENT ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT SECTION 171(9) CAN HA VE NO APPLICATION TO HUFS WHICH ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX P RIOR TO THE ATE OF PARTIAL PARTITION AND PARTLY AND SINCE NO ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE UPON THE ASSESSEE HUF PRIO R TO 18.6.1998 FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MUST BE UPHELD. 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED T HE PARTIAL PARTITION TOOK PLACE ON 18 TH JUNE 1998 AND THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 19 TH JUNE 1998. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE UPON THE HUF PRIOR TO THE AFORESAID DATES. T HE HUF IS THEREFORE ONE WHICH IS NOT HITHERTO ASSESSED AS UNDIVIDED. TO SUCH A CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 171 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION. 6. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS NOT HITHERTO ASSESSED BUT SUBMITTED THAT SE CTION 60 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT APPLIES. THIS SECTION S PEAKS OF TRANSFER OF INCOME WITHOUT TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS. IT SAYS THAT IF A PERSON TRANSFERS ONLY THE INCOME FROM AN ASSET WITHOUT TRANSFERRING THE ASSET ITSELF HE WILL CONTI NUE TO BE ASSESSED UPON THE INCOME. IN OUR OPINION THIS SE CTION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT SITUATION. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND THE VALIDITY OF THE PARTIAL ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 6 PARTITION UNDER THE GENERAL LAW. THE BANK BALANCES AND THE FDRS HAVE LEGALLY VESTED UPON THE MEMBERS OF T HE HUF UNDER THE DEED OF PARTIAL PARTITION. THE ASSET S THEREFORE STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBE RS OF THE FAMILY AND CEASED TO BE OWNED BY THE FAMILY. THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF TRANSFER OF INCOME WITHOUT TRANSFER OF THE ASSET. THE CONTENTION IS REJECTED. WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. NO COSTS. 5. THE REVENUE HAD TAKEN THIS MATTER TO THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE COURT ADJUDICATE D THE MATTER IN ITA NO. 444/08 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.8.2009. THE HONBLE COURT HAD CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 9. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATION IT IS C LEAR THAT PARTIAL PARTITION TAKING PLACE AFTER 1.1.1979 CANN OT BE RECOGNIZED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSEE ALREADY ASSESS ED IN THE STATUS OF HUF FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO PARTITIO N. MERE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE ON A DATE AFTER THE PARTITION WILL NOT AFFECT THIS POSITION. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALREAD Y BEEN ASSESSED IN HUF STATUS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO PAR TITION HAD TO BE ASSESSED IN THAT STATUS IGNORING PARTIAL PARTITION. THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT RELIED UPON IN M/S TRIL OCHAN SINGH (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE. ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 7 11. ACCORDINGLY THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WH ETHER PARTIAL PARTITION COULD BE RECOGNIZED WHEN ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF HUF FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PARTITION EVEN IF DATE OF ASSESSMENT W AS LATER TO THE DATE OF PARTITION HAS TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVO UR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 12. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS A RESULT OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD A LSO BEEN ASSESSED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. WE NEED NOT GO INTO THIS QUESTION AT THIS STAGE. SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL IS LIMITED TO DECISION OF ABOVE QUESTION. THE TRIBUNAL CA N TAKE CARE OF OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF FINDING REC ORDED ABOVE. 13. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE PARTIES MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 3.12.2009 FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 6. ACCORDINGLY THIS MATER WAS POSTED FOR HEARING. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEAR D LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN SQUARELY ANSWERED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND RAI SED BEFORE US READS AS TO WHETHER CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING TH AT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HITHERTO ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE STATUS OF HU F WHEN ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 8 ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1994-95 TO 1998-99 HAD BEE N COMPLETED ON 28.9.2000 I.E. WELL BEFORE 23.3.2001 BEING THE D ATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 IN WHICH YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED TO HAVE AFFECTED PARTIAL PARTITION. TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT C ASE ASSESSEE HAVING ALREADY ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN HUF STATUS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO PARTITION HAD TO BE ASSESSED IN THAT STAT US IGNORING PARTIAL PARTITION. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE RAISED IS DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 8. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED READS AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDIN G THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171(9) ARE NOT ATTRACTE D IN THIS CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENTS FOR ASS TT. YEARS 1994-95 TO 1998-99 HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED ON 28.9.2000 WHEREAS ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED MUCH LATER ON 23.3 .2001? 9. WE FIND THAT THAT ON THIS ISSUE LD. CIT(A) HAS R ELIED UPON THE CIT(A) ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND NOTED THAT ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSU E OF PARTIAL PARTITION OF THE SAID HUF IN 1999-2000. HOWEVER A S WE HAVE ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 9 ALREADY NOTED FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND TH IS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DE POSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RANVIR SON OF THE ASSE SSEE AND MEMBER OF HUF TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E EARNED OUT OF SOURCE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN DISREGARDING THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURN ISH SPECIFIC REPLY WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 11. WE FIND THAT ON THIS ISSUE THE CIT(A) HAS REFER RED TO THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HELD AS UNDE R:- SINCE THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THE SAME ON WHICH THE LAW AND POSITION HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBL E ITAT WHICH IS THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY THE SAME DECISION OF THE LD. TRIBUNAL IS APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION TOO I.E. 2000-01. THEREFORE THE PAR TIAL PARTITION HAVING BEEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 74 450/- ARISING OUT OF THE PARTITIONED PROPERTIE S AS PER ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 10 THE PARTIAL PARTITION DATED 18.6.1998 IN THE HANDS OF THE SMALLER HUF OF THE APPELLANT HUF AND THE ADDITION O F RS. 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED BY SH. RANBIR SINGH ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT HUF ASSE SSEE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY SH. RANBIR SIN GH FOR THIS SMALLER HUF BEING NOT RELATED TO THE APPELLAN T HUF ASSESSEE ARE NO LONGER TENABLE OR SUSTAINABLE IN T HE APPELLANT HUFS ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND THEREFORE THEY DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 11.1 SINCE THE REASONING OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CI T(A)S ORDER IS THE SAME WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE WE ASIDE THE ORD ERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENU E. 12. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED READS AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION CANNOT BE TAXED TILL THE MATER OF QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION GETS FINALITY? 13. ON THIS ISSUE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT IT IS A DMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE MATTER IS STILL UNDECIDED AND UNSETTL ED AND UNLESS IT GETS FINALITY THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATIO N CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AND THEREFORE THE AOS ACTION IN TA XING IT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IS NOT IN ORDER. HENCE T HE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AT RS. 5 48 109/- WAS C ANCELLED. ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 11 14. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1. THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS INTER-ALIA HELD AS UNDER:- INTEREST IS DIFFERENT FROM COMPENSATION. INTEREST PAID ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISIT ION ACT 1894 DEPENDS UPON A CLAIM MADE BY THE PERSON WHOSE LAND IS ACQUIRED WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS FOR DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT; IT POSTULATES AWARD OF INTEREST AT 9 PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION ONLY U NTIL IT IS PAID OR DEPOSITED. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 WOULD INCLUDE WITHIN ITS AMBIT BOTH THE MARKET VALUATION AND THE SOLATIUM AND IS PART OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WHEREAS INTER EST UNDER SECTION 34 IS ONLY FOR DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT AFTE R THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IS DETERMINED. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 IS A PART OF THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE LAND WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 34. 15. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES O F THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE SAID ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN LIG HT OF THE AFORESAID HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . ITA NOS. 2908/DEL/03 & 3446/DEL/2008 A.YRS. 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 12 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPE ALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL FIL ED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/02/2010 SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 02/02/ 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