Madhu Bhatnagar, v. ITO Ward I (4),

ITA 1841/DEL/2007 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 184120114 RSA 2007
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1841/DEL/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Madhu Bhatnagar,
Respondent ITO Ward I (4),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-02-2010
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 13-04-2007
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 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. 1840&1841/DEL/2007 A.YRS. : 1996-97 & 1997-98 SMT. MADHU BHATNAGAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER C/O M/S S.M. MATHUR & CO. CA WARD 1(4) GHAZIA BAD 1692 ARYA SAMAJ ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI 110 005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SM MATHUR CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI IPS BINDRA SR. DR O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA AM : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 A ND 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNE CTED AND THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THESE ARE BEING CONSOL IDATED AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE UNWARRANTED ADDITION OF RS. 2 37 269/- FOR ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED /UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING BASED ON VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO FOR A.Y. 1996-97 (RS. 2 70057/- FOR A.Y. 1997-98) ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE DERIVES INCOME FROM SA LARY AND INCOME FROM HIRE CHARGES OF VANS. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 144/148 ON 28.3.2002 ON A TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 13 08 540/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 92 900/- FILED ON 4.3.2008. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.2003 ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS. 271 970/-. 4. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WHO VIDE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 37 70 TO 3772/DEL/2003 SET ASIDE THE ORDERS ON CERTAIN ISSUE S WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORD ING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO OBSERVED THAT :- 1. ADDITION OF RS. 4 04 598/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING (RS. 3 46 6 27/- + 57 971/-) SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT:- THE DVO MEERUT VIDE REPORT DATED 2.1.2002 ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING R-6/151 RA J NAGAR GHAZIABAD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 1996-97 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 11 59 427/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 8 13 000/- ONLY. THE DIFFERENCE O F RS. 3 46 427/- (1159427-813000) WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER A SUM OF RS. 5779 1/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO W ITH THE OBSERVATION THAT 5% OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 115942 7/- HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DVO WITHOUT VERIFYI NG EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION COST WOULD HAVE TO BE INCREASED BY 5%. THUS TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 40 4598/- (346627 + 57971) WAS MADE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 57 971/- HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER DATED ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 3 31.3.2003. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 46 42 7/- THE ITAT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND DIRECT THE AO TO CO NSIDER SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REPORT O F THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE WILL MAKE OUT SPECIFIC OBJECTION S TO THE ESTIMATES AS ARRIVED BY THE DVO. THE AO WILL CONSI DER THESE OBJECTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE RAISED CERTAIN OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE VALUATION OF PROPERT Y NO. R- 6/151 RAJ NAGAR GHAZIABAD MADE BY THE DVO AT RS. 32 27 000/- AS PER REPLIES DATED 2/3/2006 AND 24.3.2006. ACCORDINGLY THE OBJECTIONS WERE FORWAR DED TO THE DVO MEERUT FOR CONSIDERATION AND SUBMITTING HI S REPORT REGARDING VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY NO. R-6/ 151 RAJ NAGAR GHAZIABAD. THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER MEERUT VIDE AMENDED VALUATION REPORT DATED 31.3.2006 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIO NS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS. 10 50 069/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE ESTIM ATED BY THE DVO AT RS. 10 50 069/- AND THE COST OF CONST RUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. RS. 81 12 800/- COMES TO RS. 2 3 7 269/- WHICH REMAINS UNDISCLOSED/ UNEXPLAINED AND THE SAM E IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED /UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING R- 6/151 RAJ NAGAR GHAZIABAD DURING THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1996-97. 6. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 4 5.1 DOCUMENT AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD REVEAL THAT IN THIS CASE DVOS REPORT DATED 2.1.2002 WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THE OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED WHICH WERE AGAIN PASSED TO THE DVO. HIS COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON 31.3.2006. THE REPORT RECEIVED ON 31.3.2006 WAS PERTAINING TO THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT / AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO THE REPORT DATED 2.1.2002. AS SUCH IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FOR COMMENTS ON THE DVOS REPORT. FURTHER AS PER HONBLE ITATS DIRECTION AFTER THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DESK PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AND THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED ON MERIT. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT OBJECTION DATED 2.3.2006 AND 24.3.2006 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT TO DVOS REPORT DATED 2.2.1002 WERE LOOKED INTO AND AMENDED VALUATION REPORT WAS MADE AVAILABLE ON 31.3.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DVO DURING THE YEAR COMES TO RS. 2 37 269/- WHICH REMAINED UNDISCLOSED/ UNEXPLAINED AND THE SAME IS ADDED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT R-6/151 RAJ NAGAR GHAZIABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 2 37 269/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. FACTS OF A.Y. 1996-97 AND 1997-98 ARE IDENTICAL. W E FIND THAT ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 5 TRIBUNAL HAD REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF TH E AO BY SPECIFICALLY POINTING OUT THAT AO WAS DIRECTED TO C ONSIDER THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REPORT O F THE DVO AND THE AO WILL CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSU E. NOW ASSESSEE HAS DULY MADE OUT HER OBJECTIONS AO NOTED THAT THE SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE DVO MEERUT FOR CONSIDERATION . NOW AO NOTED THAT DVO WHILE AMENDING VALUATION REPORT DATE D 31.3.2006 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS ESTIMAT ED THE COST OF THE BUILDING DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AT RS. 1050069/- AS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL VALUATION OF RS. 32 27 000/-. NOW HERE WE FIND THAT HOW THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS WERE MET BY THE DVO HAS NOT AT ALL BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. ONCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY REMITTED TO THE FI LES OF THE AO BY THE ITAT BY DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER THE SPECIF IC OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD THE OBJECTIONS AND HOW THEY WERE DEALT WITH. THE AO HAS FAILED TO DO SO. FOR A.Y. 1996-97 THE ORIGINAL VALUATION OF DVO WAS RS. 32 27 000/- WHICH IS NOW BEEN MADE RS. 1050069/- (FOR A.Y. 1997 -98 FROM RS. 1319622 TO RS. 1195175) WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION AS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR MENTIONING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSESSEES COST OF CONSTRUCTION THAT MADE B Y THE DVO. NO OTHER DETAILS HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THE AMENDED VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO BE DATED 31/3/2006 BY THE DVO AND THE AOS ORDER IS ALSO DATED 31.3.2006. HEN CE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REVISED DVOS ORDER WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE REVENUE CASE THAT THE REVISED VA LUATION REPORT WAS ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 6 GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR FILING ANY OBJECTION. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATER THIS ADDITION IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED . ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF RS. 40 000/- FOR A.Y. 1996-97 (RS. 80000 FRO A.Y. 1997-98). 10. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER FOR A.Y. 1996-97. 2. ADDITION OF RS. 110501/- BEING 50% OF EXPENDITU RE DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR WANT OF DETAILS - SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT: THE AO DISALLOWED 50% OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN TH E P/L ACCOUNT WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ON GORING THROUGH THE P/L A/C IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TOTAL GENERAL IN NATURE EXPEN SES OF RS. 2 21 003/- UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS EXCEPT EXPENSE S UNDER THE HEADS BANK CHARGES DEPRECIATION AND ELEC TRICITY EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COP Y OF A/C OF THESE EXPENSES NOR PRODUCED BOOKS OF A/CS F OR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME THE 50% OF THESE EXPENSES ARE BEING DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR WANT OF DETA ILS. AS SUCH 50% EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 10 501/- WE RE DISALLOWED. THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER WIT H THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 7 WE DEEM FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THIS ADDITION ALSO TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION TO BE DECIDED IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD. THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 21 003/- UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS A RE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTE NDED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WIT H BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO PART OF IT IS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. IT HAS FURTHER BEE N CONTENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT WITHOUT INCURRING SUCH EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT RUN HER BUSINESS BUT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE NO T AVAILABLE. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DISCUSSION A SUM OF RS. 400 00/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME FO THE ASSESSEE FOR UN VOUCHED EXPENSES. THEREFORE AN ADDITION OF RS. 40000/- IS BEING ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDE R:- THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 PERTAINS TO THE DISALLO WANCE OF 50% OF EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED AT RS. 221003/- TO P&L ACCOUNT. THE HONBLE ITAT SET ASIDE THE CASE AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 8 OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER GIVING FRESH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT VARIOUS EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH TH E COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND MANY EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS/ VOUCHERS. AFTER DISCUSSION WI TH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF RS. 40000/- IS ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR UNVOUCHED EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED / UNVERIFIABLE BILLS/ VOUCHERS OF RS. 40000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 221003/- IS HELD TO BE CAL LED FOR. FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AGAINST THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 770627/- ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 80 000/- WAS MADE. 12. WE FIND THAT INITIALLY THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC AD DITION OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE T O THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE FRESH CONSIDERATION ALS O AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS. HE HAS ONLY NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE THE EXPENDITURE COULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED. AO HAS M ADE THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 40000/- FOR A.Y. 1996-97 & RS. 8000 0/- FOR A.Y. 1997-98 ON THE BASIS OF UNVOUCHED EXPENSES. HE H AS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHICH EXPENDITURE IN HIS OPINION IS HIGH OR NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE ISSUE WE FIND THAT ADDITION IN THIS REGARD WAS MA DE ON SURMISES ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 9 AND CONJECTURES. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS NOT INCURRED OR THE EXPENDITURE IS BOGUS. IN THIS BACK GROUND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELET E THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD. 13. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED FOR A.Y. 1997-98 IS THAT L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN REMANDING BACK TO THE FILES OF THE ITO THE IS SUE IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT ADDITION OF RS. 78000/-. 13.1 ON THIS ISSUE ORIGINALLY THE MATTER PERTAINED TO LD. CIT(A)S SUSTAINING OF RS. 3 LACS MADE BY THE AO U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 16.12.2004 HAD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED OF LOAN FR OM 16 DIFFERENT PERSONS TOTALING RS. 3 LACS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON HER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS FOR THE REASONS THAT DETAILS OF SOURCE HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED. TH E LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE TRIBUNAL REMI TTED THE MATTER TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. NOW IN THE SECOND ROUND AO ASKED TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE 4 PERSONS FROM WHOM RS. 19500/- EACH TOTALING TO RS. 78500/- WERE OBTAINED. AO NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE AFORESAID PERSONS. HENCE HE A DDED RS. 78500/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 13.2 UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THIS IN ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 10 ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO TA KE NOTE OF THIS. HE FURTHER DIRECTED THAT PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE LONEE IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. 13.3 AGAINST THIS REMAND BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE S REGARDING THE AFORESAID LOANS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE MADE BY THE AO THAT THE ADDRESS WERE INCORRECT OR T HAT ANY SUMMONS WERE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT . UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO REMIT THE MATTER SECOND TIME BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED ITS ONUS AND THE AO HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE SAME OR TAKE APP ROPRIATE MEASURES FOR MAKING ANY ENQUIRY WHICH WAS REQUIRED IN HIS OPINION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. 14. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED PERTAINS TO LEVY OF INTE REST. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED ALL THE ADDITIONS AND THE ISSU E OF LEVY OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE THUS ADJUDICAT ION OF THIS ISSUE IS AN ONLY ACADEMIC AND HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WI TH. 15. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1840&1841/DEL/07 A.YRS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/02/2010 U PON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18/02/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A)5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES