Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Aulakh, MANSA V. The Income Tax Officer, MANSA

CO 13/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3418 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 642/(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: CLMPS4386J SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH AULAKH, BHIKHI ROAD, MANSA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4), MANSA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 54/(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: CLMPS4386J INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4), MANSA. VS. SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH AULAKH, BHIKHI ROAD, MANSA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 13/(ASR)/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.54/(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2007-08 PAN: CLMPS4386J [ SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH AULAKH, BHIKHI ROAD, MANSA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4), MANSA. (CROSS OBJECTORS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. JYOTSNA (C.A.) & J. K. GUPTA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D. R.) DATE OF HEARING: 07.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.09.201 7 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL A S BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA DATED 24. 10.2016, FOR ASSTT. ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 2 YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJ ECTIONS TO THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE WHEREIN HE HAS TAKEN THE LEGAL ISS UES REGARDING TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNTS ITSELF. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 642/ASR/2016 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE- OPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE 21.2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TRANSFE RRED BY THE PUNJABI CO-OP HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY OR AT THE MO ST BY THE MEMBERS IS NOT EVEN A CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF NOT IFICATION DATED 06.01.1994 (PRINTED AT 205 ITR (ST.) 121). SO, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR ITS TRANSFER IN THE HAND S OF THE SOCIETY OR ITS MEMBERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE WHOLE OF THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT EVEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ASSES SED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSESSE D THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 21.2 ACRES IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OP SOCIETY AND THE SLP OF THE D EPARTMENT STAND ADMITTED IN HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE 383 ITR 1 (S T.). THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE AGAIN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE MEMBER. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TAX ABILITY OF RS. 66 LAKHS AGAINST RS. 30 LAKHS RECEIVED DURING THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CANNOT ORDER TO TAX RS. 36 LAKHS, RECEIVED ON 25.04.2007 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE DATE 25.04.2007 FALLS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE AS SESSMENT YEAR FOR TAX PURPOSES. 6. THAT IN ALL CASES OF MEMBERS THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT IN THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2006-07 TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. SO, THERE CANNOT BE D ISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE MEMBERS PLACED SIMILARLY IN VIEW OF ART ICLE 14/16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECALCULATE THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F SUBJECT TO THE APPELLANT FULFILLI NG THE PRECEDENT ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 3 CONDITIONS AND CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION BE MADE IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED IN THAT SECTION AS THE AO HAS ALREADY ALL OWED DEDUCTION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED IN PARA 6.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN THIS ISSUE WAS NO T BEFORE HIM. 8. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED TO T HE ASSESSEE TO WHOM HE IS FOUND ENTITLED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 54/ASR/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47)(1 ) OF THE ACT AND CAPITAL GAIN AROSE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 45(1) OF THE ACT ON FULL CONSIDERATION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS ELIGIBLE ON ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TH EREBY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(1) WHICH PROVIDE THAT CAPI TAL GAIN ARISES ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN C.O. NO. 13/ASR/2017 1. THAT THE AO HAS NOT FILED THE SECOND APPEAL ON THE PROPER FORM. SO, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS MENTIONED THE INCORRECT DATE OF SERVICE AS 07.12.2016 WHERE AS THE CORRECT DATE OF SERVICE IS 01.11.2016. 3. THAT AS PER THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR RE- OPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OWNER OF THE 21.2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS THE PUNJABI CO-OP HOUSING B UILDING SOCIETY, THEN HOW THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ALLEGED TRANSF ER OF THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT TOO BY RE-OPENING THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REOPENING IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT AS PER THE LAW, THE PUNJABI CO-OP HOUSING B UILDING SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS. SO, THE ALLEGED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF A GRICULTURAL LAND BY THE SOCIETY CAN NOT BE AGAIN ASSESSED IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO BY RE-OPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY RE-ASSESSED THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION IN THE HANDS OF TH E PUNJABI CO- OP HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY AS PER 386 1TR 116 (P & H) FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SO,CAN NOT BE AGAIN RE-ASSE SSED AS TRANSFER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE- OPENING AS WELL AS RE-ASSESSSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE Q UASHED. ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 4 6. THAT THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT H AS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING IN 386 ITR 116 THAT THE AGRICULTURA L LAND MEASURING 21.2 ACRES WAS PURCHASED BY THE PUNJABI C O-OP HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY, THEN INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND CANNOT BE RE-ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE-ASSESSSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. 7. THAT THE AO CANNOT GO BEYOND THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB I CO-OP HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A MEMBER AND IS REPORTED AT 386 ITR 116 (P & H). SO, THE RE- OPENING AS WELL AS RE-ASSESSSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 8. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED TO T HE ASSESSEE TO WHOM HE IS FOUND ENTITLED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS OBSERVED THAT LD. DR HAD FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IN ITA NO. 54/ASR/2017, HOWEVER AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE WERE OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER CAN BE DISPOSED OFF, THEREFORE THE ADJOU RNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED W ITH HIS ARGUMENTS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE WILL NOT BE PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF HIS APPEAL AND WILL ALSO NOT B E PRESSING CROSS OBJECTIONS, THEREFORE THE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL I N ITAT NO. 642 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS IN C.O. NO. 13/ASR/2017 MAY BE DIS MISSED AS WITHDRAWN. REGARDING THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY ASS ESSEE IN GROUND NO. 4 TO 6, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. S. ATWAL AND OTHERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF PUNJABI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIET Y AND HAD ENTERED INTO A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WITH HASH BUILDERS PRIV ATE LIMITED, ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 5 CHANDIGARH (HASH) AND TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMP ANY LTD. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND BELONGING TO ASSESSEE AND THE A SSESSEE WAS PROMISED MONETARY CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,65,00,000/- ALONGWITH TWO FURNISHED FLATS MEASURING 2250 SQUARE FEET EACH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE EXECUTED AND THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED ONLY RS.66,00,000/- ON TWO DATES RESPECTIVELY RS.30,00,0 00/- ON 25.02.2007 AND RS.36,00,000/- ON 25.04.2007 AND AFTER THAT NO AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.S. ATWAL AND OTHERS HAD HELD THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCRUAL BASIS BUT HE HELD THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.66,00,000/- HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF RS.36 ,00,000/-WAS RECEIVED DURING NEXT YEAR AND AS PER THE ORDER OF H ON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ONLY AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- WA S TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. AR GUING UPON GROUND NO. 7, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE DIRECTI ON OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F BE RECALCULATED SUBJ ECT TO FULFILLMENT OF PRECEDENT CONDITIONS ARE NOT LEGAL. ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 6 5. THE LD. DR FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY REVENUE IS THAT L D. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCRUAL BASIS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THOUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABIL ITY UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE IS DULY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. S. ATWAL AND OTHERS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDER THESE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE C ALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS INCORPORATED THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE COURT IN HIS O RDER AT PAGE 7 AND 8 AND HAS FOLLOWED IT EXCEPT THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED T HE ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.36,00,000/- RECEIVED DURING SUCCEEDING YEAR ALSO AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT A CORRECT VIEW AS IN ALL THE SIMILAR CASES, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONL Y AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE CONSI DERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. FOR THE SAKE OF COM PLETENESS, THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. S. ATWAL AND OTHERS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: WE SUMMARISE OUR CONCLUSIONS AS UNDER:- (I) PERUSAL OF THE JDA DATED 25/02/2007 READ WITH SALE DEEDS DATED 02/03/2007 AND 25/04/2007 IN RESPECT OF 3.08 ACRES AND 4.62 ACRES RESPECTIVELY WOULD REVEAL THAT THE PARTIES HAD AGRE ED FOR PRO-RATA TRANSFER OF LAND. ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 7 (II) NO POSSESSION HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ENTIRE LAND IN PART PERFORMANCE OF JDA DATED 25 /02/2007 SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTION 53-A OF THE 1882 ACT. (III) THE POSSESSION DELIVERED, IF AT ALL, WAS A LICENSE E FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT IN THE CAPACITY OF A TRANSFEREE. (IV) FURTHER SECTION 53-A OF 1882 ACT, BY INCORPORATION , STOOD EMBODIED IN SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT AND ALL THE ESSENTIA L INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 53- A OF 1882 ACT WERE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED. IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION OF JDA DATED 25/02/2007 HAVING BEEN EXECUTED AFTER 24/ 09/2001, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 53-A OF 1882 ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY. (V) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE-APPELLANT THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPER, CA PITAL GAINS TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID ON THAT AND SALE DEEDS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXECUTED. IN VIEW OF CANCELLATION OF JDA DATED 25.02.207, NO FUR THER AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND NO ACTION THEREON HAVE BEEN TAKEN. IT WAS URGED THAT AS AND WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS RECEIVED, CAPITAL GAINS TAX SHAL L BE DISCHARGED THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID STAND, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSES SEE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN BOUND BY THE SAID STAND. (VI) THE ISSUE OF EXIGIBILITY TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX HAVI NG BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION OF EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WOULD NOT SURVIVE ANY LONGER AND HAS BEEN RENDE RED ACADEMIC. (VII) THE TRIBUNAL AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT RI GHT IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT TO BE LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TA X IN RESPECT OF REMAINING LAND MEASURING 13.5 ACRES FOR WHICH NO CONSIDERATIO N HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND WHICH STOOD CANCELLED AND INCAPABLE OF PERFORMA NCE AT PRESENT DUE TO VARIOUS ORDERS PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COURT IN PILS. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO. 4 TO 6 ARE ALLOWED AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ONLY THE AMOUNT REC EIVED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 7 RELATING TO DIRECTION OF L D. CIT(A) TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY MADE A FINDING O F FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.43,36,800/- FOR THE PU RCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 8 HOUSE, THEREFORE ANY FURTHER DIRECTION OF LD. CIT(A ) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED U/S 54F OF TH E ACT AND THIS WAS NOT A GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO. 7 IS ALSO ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUES ITS ONLY GRIEVANCE IS THAT ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION BASED ON ACCRUAL METHOD S HOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITA L GAIN WHICH DO NOT HOLD ANY FORCE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. S. ATWAL AND OTHERS, WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONLY PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. TH EREFORE THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. AS REGARDS CROSS OBJECTIONS THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 7. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJEC TIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.09.2017 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26.09.2017. /GP/SR. PS . ITA NO. 642/ASR/2016, ITA NO, 54 & C.O. NO.13/ASR/2017 ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER