IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            DELHI BENCH `F': NEW DELHI

   BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
        SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                         I.T.A. No.5203/Del/2012
                          Assessment Year : 2009-10

Income-tax Officer,                  Shri Pankaj Bahl,
Ward-35(4), New Delhi.         Vs.   B-248, Surajmal Vihar,
                                     Delhi-110092.

                                     PAN : AAHPB4861H

  (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

                Appellant by : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR.
                Respondent by : Shri N.S. Bhatnagar, Advocate.

                          Date of hearing : 10-12-2012
                          Date of Pronouncement : 10-12-2012

                                ORDER

PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th July,

2012 passed by the learned First Appellate Authority, New Delhi on the

ground that under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,

the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,31,792/- made by

the Assessing Officer disallowing exemption under sec. 80IC of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without appreciating the fact of gross profit and
                                       2                   ITA No.5203/Del/2012







application of profit rate by the Assessing Officer, further ignoring the book

results of Delhi Unit in comparison to the Solan Unit.

2.    During hearing of this appeal we have heard Shri Satpal Singh,

learned Sr. DR and Shri N.S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the assessee.

The crux of arguments on behalf of the Revenue is that the AO rightly

adopted the gross profit on the basis of attendant circumstances which was

35.6%. The learned Sr. DR invited our attention to the concluding page of

assessment order to the effect that the assessee did not pay to the purchasers

and the books of accounts were not reliable, consequently rejected. The

adoption of net profit rate was claimed to be justified. On the other hand,

Mr. Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the assessee strongly defended the

impugned order. The learned counsel also filed fresh document containing

details of sundry creditors (New Allied LPG Alliances) and Saffron India

running into 4 pages. The learned Sr. DR strongly objected of filing of new

evidence on the ground that these documents/details were not furnished

before the AO, consequently it was submitted that either these documents

may not be admitted or may be sent to the file of the AO for examination.

Mr. Bhatnagar fairly admitted that these are fresh details but go to the root of

the matter.
                                       3                   ITA No.5203/Del/2012







3.    We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material

available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, is

engaged in the business of manufacturing of LP Gas Stoves since 1990 with

the name of M/s. Saffron India & New Allied LPG Appliances in Himachal

Pradesh as well as in Delhi. The assessee claimed deduction under sec. 80IC

of the Act. The learned AO made certain additions. The Unit at Parwanoo

(H.P.) was claimed to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The

assessee showed sales at Rs.25,19,725/- for Delhi Unit showing gross profit

of Rs.4,21,047/- (16.71%). The AO rejected the books of account and

applied the gross profit rate at 30% which resulted into addition of

Rs.3,34,870/-, for the Himachal Unit, the assessee showed the sales to the

tune of Rs.3,11,34,352/- with the gross profit of Rs.1,11,04,741/- resulting

into profit of 35.67%. The entire profit of 57,60,234/- was claimed exempt

u/s 80IC of the Act. Without going into much deliberation and the fact that

the assessee filed fresh document containing the details of sundry creditors

which were neither available during assessment proceedings nor before the

learned CIT(A), therefore, as asserted by the learned counsel, that the

interest of Revenue as well as of the assessee may be protected,

consequently, we remand these documents/file to the file of the learned

Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and decide afresh in
                                       4                  ITA No.5203/Del/2012


accordance with law.       Needless to mention here that the assessee be

provided reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4.      Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
only.
5.      This order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the
learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on
10th December, 2012.

             Sd/-                                    Sd/-
       ( B.C. MEENA)                          (JOGINDER SINGH)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 10th December, 2012.

Copy of the order forwarded to:-
  1. Appellant
  2. Respondent
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)
  5. DR                                       By Order

*mg                                    Deputy Registrar, ITAT.