DCIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Gee City Builders (P) Ltd., Chandigarh

CO 21/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2070 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: GURJEET SINGH SH RAKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 117/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE DCIT VS. GEE CITY BUILDERS(P) LTD. CC-1 1464, SECTOR 43-B LUDHIANA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACCG0887A & CROSS OBJECTION NO. 21/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE DCIT VS. GEE CITY BUILDERS(P) LTD. CC-1 1464, SECTOR 43-B LUDHIANA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACCG0887A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. GURJEET SINGH SH. RAKESH JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 28/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/03/2016 ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA, DT. 19/11/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12, CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF DEMAND BY CIT(A) AS CREATED BY THE AO U NDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A DEVELOPER OF HOUSING PROJECT INCOME FROM WHICH WAS COVERED BY TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AS THE AREA OF EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FTS AND WAS HAVING INCOME FROM SALE OF FLATS. THE ASSES SEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/09/2011, BY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 11,42, 080/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS. 7,91,01,775/- IN RESPECT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT S OUT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,02,43,859/- THEREBY RETURNING INCOME AT RS. 11,42,080/- AND A REFUND OF RS. 1870/- WAS CLAIMED. THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT BY THE CPC AND INTIMATION DATE D 07/01/2012 WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE RAISING A DEMAND OF INCOME TAX OF RS. 1,80,00,220/-. THE SAID DEMAND AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING THE RETURN BY TREATING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF RS. 8,02,43,859/- AS DEEMED INCOME BY NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT . 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W ERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEVELOPER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND ALSO THAT REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN SUMMA RY PROCEEDINGS WHILE PROCESSING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS WRONG PRIMA RILY BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DEBATABLE ONE. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT DISPUTABLE AND DEBATABLE ISSUE CAN NOT BE ADDED OR DISALLOWED DURING THE PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S 143( 1)(A) BY REFERRING TO AND RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS LTD. VS. SUNIL GUPTA, ACIT (1993) 203 ITR 658 (BOM) AND THUS THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 1 43(1)(A) OF THE ACT TO RECALCULATE THE QUANTUM OF BOOK PROFIT. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED T HE APPEAL BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 3 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 HAVE BEEN APPLIED LEADING TO LE VY OF MINIMUM ALTERNATIVE TAX WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE CLAIM OF NON APPLICABILITY OF SAID SECTION BY RELYING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB(6). THE ADJUSTMENT HAD BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A). IT IS SEEN THAT THE P ERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) ARE AS UNDER:- THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS NAMELY:- I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN ; OR II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. 5. FURTHER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 143(1)(A) PROVIDE S AS UNDER: (A) AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORM ATION IN THE RETURN SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN TH E RETURN:- I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH S INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH RETURN; II) IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER THIS ACT TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH ENTRY HAS NOT BEEN SO FURNISHE D; OR III) IN RESPECT OF A DEDUCTION, WHERE SUCH DEDUCTION EXC EEDS SPECIFIED STATUTORY LIMIT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED AS MO NETARY AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE OR RATIO OR FRACTION; 6. THE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1)( A) CLEARLY SHOW THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE UNDER THE SAID PROVISI ONS. IT IS NOT OPEN UNDER THIS SECTION TO DELIBERATE UPON ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANC E OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BASED UPON INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE. IT IS THE CLAIM OF NON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS A MATTE R THAT IS SUBJUDICE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL. THE SAID CLAIM CANNOT BE AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN AS DEFINED IN EX PLANATION TO SECTION 143(1)(A). THEREFORE, THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1) (A) IN TERMS OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF NON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB IS INCORRECT AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW TH E SAID CLAIM UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A). THE ALLOWABILITY OF SAID CLAIM MAY BE EX AMINED IN THE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS AS PER LAW. 7. THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT SERIAL NO. 3 BECOMES INF RUCTUOUS AS ADJUSTMENTS/ADDITIONS HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN THE ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND THE SAID ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 1 43(1) BEING ERRONEOUS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TH EREFORE DISMISSED. 4. LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PATENTLY WRONG AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 115JB OF THE ACT BY REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1)(A)(I I) OF THE ACT WHEREIN ANY INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM THE INFORMATION IN T HE RETURN COULD BE ADDED OR DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND THUS RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF AO. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LD. DR CITED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH IN THE CASE OF 4 ACIT, CIRCLE-HARIDWAR VS. M/S SBL INDUSTRIES P. LTD . IN ITA NO. 3957/DEL/2012, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DT. 23/05/2013. 5. THE LD AR ,PER CONTRA, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT QUA THE INCOME ACCRUED FROM SALE OF FLATS MEASURING BELOW 1500 SQ. FTS . THE LD. AO WHILE PROCESSING RETURN ACCEPTED THE INCOME AS RETU RNED AT RS. 11,42,080/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, HOWEVER CAL CULATED THE DEEMED INCOME AT RS. 8,02,43,859/- UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) CHAPTE R VIA OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH PROCESSING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS AFTER MAKING SOME ADJUSTMEN TS AS PROVIDED THEREIN. WHILE EXPLAINING THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE(II) OF SECTION 1 43(1)(A) OF THE ACT LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE INCORRECT CLA IM COULD ONLY BE DISALLOWED OR ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE SAID CLA IM IS APPARENT FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN WHICH WAS NOT S O IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THERE WAS NO INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE AO COULD FORM AN OPINION ABOUT THE CLAIM BEING INCORRECT. TH E LD COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) IS HIG HLY DEBATABLE ISSUE AND COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY MAKING ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCE SSING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS NAMELY : (I) MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS LTD. VS. ACIT (1993) 203 IT R 658 (BOM) (II) ESTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CIT IV(2013) TAXMAN 19 (DELHI) AND (III) O.P. GUPTA VS. CIT (2005) 272 ITR 387 (P&H). FURTHER CONTROVERTING THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS, LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION RELIED O N BY THE LD. DR IS NOT 5 APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE SAID DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON 23/05/2013, WHEREAS THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS PASSED ON 29/07/2013 AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT SHOULD L BE APPLIED WHICH SQUARELY COVERS TH E FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND NOT THAT OF TRIBUNAL. FINALLY THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS FULLY COVERED RATIO DECI DENDI OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND ON THE BASIS OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE RET URN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFIT UNDE R SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT UNDER CLAUSE (II) TO SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT T HEREBY TREATING THE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF FLATS UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM BU SINESS OF RS. 8,02,43,859/- AS DEEMED INCOME AND RAISING A DEMAND OF INCOME TAX O F RS. 1,80,00,220/-. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD AR BEFORE US T HAT THE REJECTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS PATENTLY WRON G AND BAD IN LAW AS THIS IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE INVOLVING DISCUSSIONS, DEBAT E AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THIS COULD NOT BE REJECTED IN THE SUMMARY PROCE EDINGS AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF TH E ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO SOUGHT TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 80IB(10) OF RS. 7,91,01,775/- UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 143(1)(A ) BEING INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION WERE ALRE ADY REPRODUCED IN THE CIT(A) FINDINGS(SUPRA) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE INCORRECT CLAIM AS IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF THE INCOME SHALL BE DI SALLOWED. FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE SECTION IT IS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO DI SALLOW OR REJECT ANY CLAIM, IT HAS TO 6 BE INCORRECT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND ON THE BASIS O F FACTS BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DULY CONSIDERED ALL THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SECTION. IN OUR OPINION THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM AN Y LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTER INDUSTRIES LT D. VS. CIT IV(SUPRA) WAS DELIVERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE- HARIDWAR VS. M/S SBL INDUSTRIES P. LTD. (SUPRA) AN D THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. MOREOVER THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THE CASE OF MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS LTD. VS. ACIT(S UPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AO HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF T HE ACT TO RECALCULATE THE QUANTUM OF INCOME (BOOK PROFIT U/S 115J ) BY DISALL OWING DEDUCTION OF AMOUNT DETERMINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE(B) OF FIR ST PROVISO TO SECTION 205 OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) MUST DETERMINE THE TAX FOUND DUE ON THE BASIS OF RETURN AND IN ANY REFUND ID DUE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN IT SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF ES TER INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN SUPPOR T OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND INADMISSIBLE T HEN ADJUSTMENT UNDER SAID PROVISION WAS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER IF THERE WERE NO S UCH DOCUMENTS PROVING THE CLAIM TO BE INCORRECT OR WRONG THEN IT WAS NOT PER MISSIBLE TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD IS SUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE CLAUSE COULD NOT SUPPORT THA T ADJUSTMENT ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT BE COVERED WITH IN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 143(1)(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED THAT HE WAS N OT LIABLE TO PAY MINIMUM ALTERNATIVE TAX UNDER SECTION 115JA OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION MAY BE WRONG OR 7 INCORRECT BUT IT HAD TO BE DEALT WITH AND EXAMINED. FURTHER COMPUTATION HAD TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 115JA WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXAMINING AND CONSIDERING SEVERAL ASPECTS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE PASSING THE JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SRF CHARITABLE TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, (1992) 193 ITR 95 (DEL.). IN THE CA SE OF O.P. GUPTA VS. CIT(SUPRA) THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD TH AT PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) NOT ON THE BASIS OF RETURN OR DOCUMENT AVAILABLE WITH THE RETURN BUT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN WAS INVALID BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF SRF CHARITABLE TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS(SU PRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY RATIO DECIDENDI IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND THEREFO RE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . CROSS OBJECTION NO. 21/CHD/2014 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISED TO THE NON ADJUDICATION OF THE THIRD GROUND BY THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH READS AS UNDER: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED AO HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING TAX UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX A CT WHEREAS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS AS PER SECTION 115JB(6) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, TAX LEVIED UNDER SECTION 115JB IS ILL EGAL. THE SAME BE DELETED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MAINTAINABI LITY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEEE AND A S A RESULT THE SAID CROSS OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REJECTION OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB( 10) WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN FROM THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 115JB W HICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE 8 LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AN D IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. NO ORDER AS TO COST. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31/03/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR