IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  01.04.2009 
.
.
 Present:       Ms Sonia Mathur and Mr Praveen Chaturvedi, Advocates for the 
 Appellant. 
.
.
 + ITA No. 376/2009 
.
 The CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have returned a finding of fact to the 
 effect that the business of the assessee had been continued for the relevant 
 assessment year.  The CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that even if orders had 
 not been received, there was ample reason to conclude that the business 
 operations were continuing in the relevant year. 
 Ms Sonia Mathur has urged before us that the ITAT has sustained the 
 findings of the CIT(A) by only relying on its own order for an earlier 
 assessment year i.e., 2002-03. This submission seems attractive at first blush 
 but when put to close scrutiny, its untenability is quite apparent. The position 
 becomes clear upon reading the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The 
 Assessing Officer as a matter of fact had come to the conclusion that in the 
 assessment year under consideration i.e., assessment year 2003-04 no business 
 was carried out by the assessee by referring to the facts obtaining in the 
 preceding and succeeding assessment years.  It is in 
.
 ITA 376/2009                                                               Page 
 1 of 3 
 this context that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has referred to its own 
 order for assessment year 2002-2003. 
 A reading of the orders of the authorities below would show that their 
 decision is not based entirely on the reasoning given in the earlier assessment 
 year. 
 The following paragraph from the order of the CIT(A), which has been 
 upheld by the ITAT is relevant. 
 ?I have considered the facts of the case and also gone through the appellate 
 order for immediately preceding year.  In fact, I have given a finding in 
 assessment year 2002-03 that the business of turbo charges is in existence and 
 merely because orders were not received, there could be no adverse inference. 
 As in the case of preceding year, there is no sale of any plant and machinery or 
 closure of the establishment and on the contrary from the various expenses 
 incurred by the appellant, continuation of business is fully supported.  In 
 fact, Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order has made reference to 
 claim of expenses under the head cost of manufacturing and sales, staff 
 expenses, sale and administrative expenses and as such the finding of the 
 Assessing officer that the business has been closed is self contradictory. 
 Further, even warranty obligation in respect of execution of earlier orders was 
 also operative during the year.  In order to supplement in the existing 
 business, the appellant along with the turbo charger business also initiated the 
 business activities for manufacturing of coins and coins blanks as a 100% EOU 
.
.
 and all the requisite approvals were obtained and the products were being 
 tested.  In fact, the business of coins blanks is also integrated and 
 complimentary to the business of the turbo charges as the exciting plant and 
 machinery continued to be used.  There is interlacing of funds, management and 
 infrastructure.? 
.
 ITA 376/2009                                                               Page 
 2 of 3 
 It is quite clear that none of the facts found by the CIT(A) could be 
 traversed by the Revenue before the Tribunal.  In view of the above, no 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. 
 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
.
 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 
.
.
.
.
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. 
.
 APRIL 01, 2009 
 kk 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ITA 376/2009                                                               Page 
 3 of 3 
 38and39