Akhil Mehra, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349 /DEL/09 1/11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3022 /DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SHRI AKHIL MEHRA ACIT C/O MEHRA BANDHAN CIRCLE-23 (1) 53-MUNICIPAL MARKET NEW DELHI. JANPATH NEW DELHI. V. AND I.T.A. NO.3349/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ACIT SHRI AKHIL MEHRA CIRCLE-23 (1) C/O MEHRA BANDHAN NEW DELHI. V. 53-MUNICIPAL MARKET JANPATH NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAJPM AAJPM AAJPM AAJPM- -- -3644 3644 3644 3644- -- -D DD D ASSESSEE BY : MRS. SHASHI KAPILA ADVOCATE & SHRI BRIJESH MATHUR. DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-X XIII NEW DELHI DATED 27.5.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. BOTH THESE APPEA LS WERE . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 2/11 HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMM ON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ACI T OF DISALLOWING `.31 14 490/- CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE ACT. II) THAT IN DOING SO HE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT DED UCTION U/S 80HHC AS CLAIMED WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THERE WAS A LOSS I N THE EXPORT BUSINESS AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF FIFTH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC INSERTED W.E.F.1.4.1992 BY TA XATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005. III) THAT IN DOING SO HE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT EVI DENCE IN THE FORM OF BANK REMITTANCES CERTIFICATES WERE AVAILA BLE FOR `.6 20 51 140/- REALIZED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AGAINST ASSESSEE;S PLEA THAT SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE EXPORT PROCEEDS OF ` 7 14 48 043/-. 2. I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE M THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF `.46 95 335/- AS INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT OUT OF SUND RY CREDITORS BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN M/S MEHRA BANDHU FASHIONS AUDIT ED BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2003 OF `.1 12 37 456/- ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. II) THAT IN DOING SO HE HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING ON HIS RECORD CONFIRMATIONS OR SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCES AS ON 31.3.20 03 FROM 11 PARTIES AMOUNTING TO `.39 53 384/- FILED BEFORE HIM AT THE REJOINDER STAGE IN SPITE OF HIM ADMITTING THE ADDITIONALO EVIDE NCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A(A) VIDE PARA 10 OF HIS ORDERS DT. 27.5.2009 SIMPLY . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 3/11 BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FILED EARLIER BEFORE HIM ON 4. 11.2008 AT THE TIME OF FILING EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF 4 PAPER BOOK S. IV) THAT IN ANY CASE HE HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING BUT NOT R ELYING UPON THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS S TATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF M/S MEHR A BANDHU FASHION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 & F.Y. 2003-0 4 AND THE POSITION OF THOSE SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCES AS O N 31.3.2004 FILED BEFORE HIM IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSME NT OF `.46 95 335/- AS INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT INCLUDING OF `.7 41 951/- DUE TO 25 PARTIES FOR WHICH CONFIRMATIO NS COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AND FILED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ACC OUNT BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED AND NOT EVEN BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD CIT. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ALLEGED A SSESSMENT MADE ON 14.3.2006 U/S 143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN A CCEPTING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VERSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.`14.3.2006 WAS INDEED DISPATCHED BY HIM ON 31.3.20 06 BY SPEED POST AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 4/11 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `.10 56 727/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON PRODUCTION OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BILLS VOUCHERS ET C. BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO T HE HIM BEFORE FRAMING THE ORDER U/S 143(3). 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EV9IDEN CE IN THE CASE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD CI T(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A OF IT RULES BEFORE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF `. 65 42 121/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 1 12 27 456/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE RE LEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MAD E THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT 1961. 4. BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.4 OF HIS ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE IS DATED 14.3.2006 BUT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) ON 11. 3.2008. BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2006 BECAUSE THE SAI D ORDER HAD BEEN DISPATCHED TO THE OLD ADDRESS ALTHOUGH AS PER LET TER DATED 14.12.2005 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 5/11 SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND HE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL BEFORE HIM. ON THIS ASPECT THERE IS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE A LTHOUGH THE REVENUE IS DISPUTING REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A). REGARDING THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO.3 4 & 5 ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS TIME BARRED NO ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BY LD AR OF TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE GROUNDS AND HENCE THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHCON THIS BASIS THAT THERE IS LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS LOSS HA S BEEN WORKED OUT BEFORE GIVING EFFECT TO THE FIFTH PROVISO TO SECT ION 80HHC OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE EFFECT HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE FIFTH PRO VISO TO SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT THIS ISSUE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING FIFTH P ROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE WAS PL ACED ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SLS EXPORT PVT. LTD. V. ACIT AS REPORTED IN 127 ITD 248. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASHTRA UDYOG LTD. V. CIT AS REPORTED IN 23 DTR 383 (CAL.). LD DR OF T HE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS A SPECT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT ED BY LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.19 OF HIS ORDER THAT THERE IS LOSS OF `.38 46 974.67 AND SINCE THIS IS NOT A CASE OF POSITIVE PROFIT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THIS LOSS OF `.38.46 LAKLHS IS BEFORE GIVING EFFECT TO THE FIFT H PROVISO TO SECTION . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 6/11 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE LESS THAN `.10 CRORES AND HENCE FIFTH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC(3) WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) AC T 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1992 IS APPLICABLE AND IF THERE IS LOSS UNDER CLAUSE (A) (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80HHC SUCH LOSS SHALL BE SET OFF AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF 90% EXP ORT INCENTIVE IN THE PROPORTION OF EXPORT TURNOVER TO TOTAL TURNOVER . THE PROVISIONS OF THIS FIFTH PROVISO HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND HENCE WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT ON THIS ISSUE THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AND HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE FIF TH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC(3). THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ALSO IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF TOTA L CREDITORS OF `.1 12 37 456/- AS PER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ME HRA BANDHU FASHION AS ON 31.3.2003 THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CONFIR MATION OF SOME CREDITORS BEFORE LD CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF `.65 42 121/- AND TO THIS EXTENT THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) BUT CONFIRMATION OF 11 PAR TIES AMOUNTING TO `.39 53 384/- WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD CIT(A) AT THE REJOINDER STAGE AND THE SAME WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND IN ADDITION TO THIS CONFIRMATION OF REMAINING 25 PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF `.7 41 951/- COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AND FURNISHED EVE N BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUE REGARD ING THESE 11 CREDITORS OF `.39 53 384/- AND OF 25 PARTIES `.7 41 9 51/- SHOULD BE . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 7/11 RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION OF THESE PARTIES TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS AGAINST THIS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD D R OF THE REVENUE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CO NFIRMATIONS EVEN BEFORE LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF 25 PARTIES `.7 41 951/- AND FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF 11 PARTIES RELATING TO AN AMOUNT OF `.39 53 384/- AT A REJOINDER STAGE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA NO.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF M/S MEHRA BANDHU THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITO RS TO THE TUNE OF `.1 12 37 456/- AND IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPOR TUNITIES THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY CONFIRMATION AND H AS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO OBSER VED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PR OVED. OUT OF THIS THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF MOST OF THE PARTIES BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD CIT(A) AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF `.65 42 121/- FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE LD CIT(A). IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE FEEL THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTA IN AND FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM SOME OF THE CREDITORS THE ADDI TION SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED FOR THIS REASON ALONE AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE SAME AND HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE A SSESSEE SHOULD FURNISH THE REQUISITE CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH THE COM PLETE ADDRESS . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 8/11 PAN NUMBER ETC. AND OTHER EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF 11 PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF `.39 53 384/- AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF REMAINING 25 PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF `.7 41 951/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AND AFTER AL LOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. REMAINING GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS ARE ALREADY REJE CTED BY US AS NOT PRESSED AND HENCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. REGARDING REVENUES APPEAL WE FIND THAT ONE GRO UND OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I.E. GROUND NO.2. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD CI T(A) IN PARA NO.10 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY STATING TH AT NO QUESTION WAS PUT ACROSS TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENABLED HIM TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT PRECISELY WHAT DETAILS WERE REQUISITIONED FROM THE ASSESSEE. LD CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO GET TH E BENEFIT OF DOUBT. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORD BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) TO SATISFY HIM THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE. HENCE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL I .E. REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF `.10 56 727/-. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 9/11 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT ED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.12 OF HIS ORDER THAT IT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS LISTED UNDER INDIRECT E XPENSES TOTALING `/.10 56 727/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S M EHRA BANDHU AND IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT MOST OF THESE PAYMENTS AR E IN CASH WHICH IS BEYOND PROOF. THEREAFTER IT IS NOTED BY TH E LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.13 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED AND NO FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND THEREIN AND NOR IS IT QUALIFI ED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM IN PARA-12 AND AS PER THE SAME THIS AMOUNT OF `.10 56 727/- INCLUDED DEPRECIATION TELEPHONE EXPENSES SALARY B ONUS RENT PAID TO NDMC AND BANK CHARGES ETC. LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED T HIS DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT NO COGENT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FAULTY AND DID NOT MANIFEST THE CORRE CT PICTURE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN ITS ENTIRE TY WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. REGARDING GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE I.E. REGAR DING DELETION OF ADDITION OF `.65 42 121/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF `.1 12 27 456/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUNDRY CREDITORS WE FIND THAT SUCH AN ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THIS REASON THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS. BEFORE LD CI T(A) CONFIRMATION OF 22 PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF `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`.65 42 121/- WERE SUB MITTED BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALONG WITH PAN NUMBER OF THESE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL IN THE REMAND REPORT WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 11.2.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI). . I.T.A. NO.3022 & 3349/DEL/09 11/11