Shri Karan Behari Thapar, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

CO 338/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9553 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Keywords: Residential status; Double taxation relief; Advance ruling
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.4441/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 I.T.A.NO.4442/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 I.T.A.NO.4443/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 I.T.A.NO.4444/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 I.T.A.NO.1286/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS MR. KARAN THAPAR, CIRCLE 46(1), FLAT NO.2A, PALAM MARG, NEW DELHI. VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057 (PAN: AAEPT2939D) C.O. NO.338/DEL/2011 (IN I.T.A.NO.1286/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. KARAN BEHARI THAPAR, VS ACIT, CIR.46(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.N. BHATIA, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL AGARWAL, SHAILESH G UPTA ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 2 O R D E R PER BENCH THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI DATE D 30.4.12 IN APPEAL NOS. 3331, 3330, 3329 AND 3328 FOR AY 2000-01, 2002 -03 AND 2009-10. FIFTH APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON ITA NO. 1286/DEL/201 1 AND C.O. NO. 338/DEL/11 HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-XXX, NEW DELHI DATED 20.12.2010 IN APPEAL NO. 224/08-09. 2. SINCE ALL FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED ON SIMILAR ISSUE THAT FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM U.K. FROM THE EMPLOYER OF DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DULY C OVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23 (1) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND U.K. AND APPLICAB ILITY OF ARTICLE 23(3) ARISES ONLY WHEN ITEMS OF INCOME ARE NOT DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE AND CLARITY IN THE FINDINGS, WE ARE DISPOSING OF THESE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEALS REL ATED TO AY 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2009-10 ARE SIMILAR WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 1. DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE APPELL ANT IN U.K. STATING THAT IT IS COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23(3) OF THE ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 3 DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND U.K. AND SINCE THE U.K. HAS TAXED THE AMOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE PAYMENT IS COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE DTAA 2. IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS DU LY COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN IND IA AND UK. 3. IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE 23(1) IS SPEC IFIC AND NOT RESIDUARY LIKE ARTICLE 23(3). 4. DELETING THE ADDITION AS THE APPLICABILITY OF AR TICLE 23(3) ARISES ONLY WHEN THE ITEMS OF INCOME ARE NOT DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION, W HICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE AS THE PENSION RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE IS BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY HIM AS A RESIDENT OF THE CONTRACTING STATE. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL RELATED TO AY 2006- 07 READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,89,622/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PENSION RECEIVED FROM ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND/NAT WEST LTD., U.K.; II) ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PENSION OF RS.21,89,622/- WAS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 20(1) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND U.K., WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS DIFFERENT FROM PENSION COVERED BY ARTICLE 20(1) OF THE DTAA AS (A) THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK NOWHERE MENTIONS THE WORD FAMILY PENSION ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 4 AND (B) THE PARA 2 OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK DEFINING THE PENSION DOES NOT REFER TO THE RECIPIENT OF PENSION AND IF THE INCOME IS CHARACTERIZED AS PENSION THE TAXABILITY I S TO BE DECIDED UNDER THE ARTICLE DEALING WITH THE PENSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RECIPIENT; III) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. (2) ABOVE, AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND/NAT WEST LTD., U.K. IS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 20(1) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND THE U.K., THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE AMOUNT IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 23(3) OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, WHILE OVERLOOKING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THESE AP PEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE WAS WORKING IN U.K. WITH ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND/COUNTY NAT WEST LIMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS RBS) A ND SHE DIED ON 22.4.1989 WHILE SHE WAS IN SERVICE. ON HER DEATH, THE EMPLOY ER OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO FAMILY PENSION TO THE HUSBAND T HE ASSESSEE MR. KARAN THAPAR UNDER THE FAMILY PENSION SCHEME RUN BY THE C OMPANY. AS PER COMMITMENT OF THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED WIFE, TH EY WOULD CONTINUE PAYING HER HUSBAND I.E. ASSESSEE MR. KARAN THAPAR U NTIL HIS DEATH. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT MR. KARAN THAPAR IS HAVING ISSUES F ROM HIS DECEASED WIFE. THE ASSESSEE WAS A RESIDENT BUT NOT ORDINARILY RESI DENT TILL 1999-2000 AND BECAME RESIDENT AND ORDINARILY RESIDENT W.E.F. AY 2 000-01 AND HAS BEEN RECEIVING THE FAMILY PENSION REGULARLY FORM RBS, UK WHO WAS EMPLOYER OF ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 5 HIS DECEASED WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAXED FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN U.K. AND THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER W AS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) GRANTED REL IEF FOR THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23(3) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK AND CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA WHEN SOURCE COUNTRY I.E.UK HAS ALREADY TAXED THESE AMOUNTS. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ITAT REMITTED THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN DECID ED THE ISSUE OF PENSION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF FA MILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED FIRST A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RBS, THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSES SEE AS FAMILY PENSION CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23(3) OF THE INDIA UK DTAA TREATY. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE I S BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THESE SECOND APPEALS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING FIRST PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 6 ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER 58 PAGES, SECOND PAPER BOOK SP READ OVER 30 PAGES CONTAINING DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WRI TTEN BRIEF SYNOPSIS. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PENSION AND FAMILY PENSION AR E TWO SEPARATE TERMS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 20(1) OF INDO-UK, DTAA RATHE R THE SAME FALLS UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OF INDIA UK DTAA WHICH IS TAXABLE IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WRONGLY HELD THAT FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UK IS COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 23(3) OF INDO-UK DTAA. THE DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE AM OUNT OF FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 23(3 ) OF INDO-UK DTAA OVERLOOKING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. 7. THE DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT ARTICLE 23(1) IS SPEC IFIC AND NOT RESIDUARY LIKE ARTICLE 23(3) OF INDIA UK DTAA. THE APPLICABI LITY OF ARTICLE 23(3) ARISES ONLY WHEN THE ITEMS OF INCOME ARE NOT DEALT WITHIN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE H ERE AS THE PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY HIM AS A RESIDENT OF THE CONTRACTING STATE. 8. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 7 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE , LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RBS IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 20(1) OR 23(1) AND IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 23(3) OF INDO UK DTAA, THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON BAR E PERUSAL OF BOTH THE ARTICLES, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT ARTICLE 20 OF INDIA UK DTAA TREATY IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR PENSION AND NOT FOR FAMILY PENS ION AS BOTH THE TERMS ARE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. THE COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INDO-UK TREATY ONLY DEFINES PENSION UNDER ARTICLE 20(2) AND DOES NOT DEFINE FAMILY PENSION WHEREAS INDIAN INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 DEFINES FAMILY PENSION UNDER SECTION 57(IIA) R/W EXPLANATION ATTACHED THERETO AND SECTION 17(1)(II) OF THE ACT DEFINES TH AT THE PENSION IS INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SALARY. 9.1 FROM BRIEF WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE MAIN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, CONTE NTIONS AND DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 4.1 THAT ON BARE PERUSAL OF BOTH THE ARTICLES FOLLOWING GLARING POINT EMERGES FOR CONSIDERATION: (A) THAT ARTICLE 20 OF INDO - UK DTAA, IS APPLICA BLE ONLY FOR 'PENSION' AND NOT FOR 'FAMILY PENSION', AS BOTH THE TERMS ARE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHE R. MOREOVER, INDO - UK TREATY ONLY DEFINES PENSION UND ER ARTICLE 20 (2) AND DOES NOT DEFINE FAMILY PENSION, WHEREAS, INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT DEFINES FAMILY PENSION UNDER ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 8 SECTION S7(IIA) READ WITH EXPLANATION AND SECTION 1 7(1)(II) OF THE ACT INCLUDES PENSION UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SALARY. (B) THAT FURTHER, ARTICLE 20 IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASES OF EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVE PENSION FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS FOR PAST CONSIDERATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMEN T. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ARTICLE 20 (2) THAT PENSION MEANS, 'ANY PAYMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF PAST EMPLOYMENT'. THAT SH. KARAN THAPAR (ASSESSEE) WAS NEVER THE EMPLOYEE OF COUNTY NATWEST BANK LTD, (NOW KNOWN AS RBS); RATHER IT WAS HIS WIFE (SMT. NISHI THAPAR) WHO WAS WORKING WI TH THE SAID BANK WHO DIED ON 22.04.1989. ON DEATH OF T HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO FAMILY PENSION AS PER THE NATWEST MARKET PENSION FUND SCHE ME, WHICH ACTED AS A TRUSTEE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND FURTH ER, ON DEATH OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE SAID TRUST WAS GIVEN TH E RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE FAMILY PENSION TO THE DEPENDANTS OR SURVIVING MEMBERS OF THE DECEASED FAM ILY (COPY OF SAID SCHEME IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 8 TO 28 O F THIS NOTE, AS HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED BY LD. CIT (A) AT P AGES 8 AND 9 OF THE ORDER PERTAINING TO AV 2000-01, 20020 3 AND 2003-04). (C) THAT FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 23 (1) OF INDO - UK DTAA, AS THE SAID ARTIC LE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES 'INCOME PAID OUT OF TRUSTS OR THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS IN THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION' AND HERE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A MOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY SH. KARAN THAPAR HAS BEE N PAID OUT OF THE TRUST OF THE DECEASED CREATED BY TH E EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED IN THE NAME OF 'NATWEST PE NSION MARKET FUND' AND IS ADMINISTERED BY THE BANK AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES THE SAID PAYMENT AS A NOMINEE OF HIS WIFE. THUS, THE SAID RECEIPT OF FAMI LY PENSION IS ALSO BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 23 (1 ) OF INDO - UK DTAA AND RATHER, IS COVERED BY THE RESIDU ARY ARTICLE 23(3) AND AS SUCH, IT IS BEING RIGHTLY TAXE D IN UK AS HAS BEEN HELD BY ID CIT (A) AND NO AMOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION IS THUS, TAXABLE IN INDIA (COPY OF SAID SCH EME IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 8 TO 29 OF THIS NOTE, AS HAS ALSO BEEN ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 9 REFERRED BY LD. CIT (A) AT PAGES 8 AND 9 OF THE ORD ER PERTAINING TO AY 2000-01, 2002-03 AND 2003-04). 5. THAT SECONDLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7, REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 20 (1) OF INDO - UK DTAA IS MISCONCEIVED AND MISPLACED IN LAW, AS THE B ASIC EDIFICE AND PREMISE TO RAISE THE SAID GROUND NO LON GER SURVIVES IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE ORDER FOR AY 2006-07 DATED 17.10.200 8 HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS I.E. A Y 2000- 01, 2002-03 AND 2003-04, WHICH HAD BEEN SET ASIDE B Y HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2010 FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. THAT, IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID ORDER OF SET ASIDE BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 FOR AY 2000-01,2002-03 AND 2003-04 HAS HELD THAT THE SAID FAMILY PENSION RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 20 OF THE TR EATY RATHER BY ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE TREATY AND AS SUCH, NOW THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED BY HON'B LE TRIBUNAL IS THAT WHETHER, 'FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OR ARTICLE 23(3) OF INDO - UK TREATY'. 5.1 THUS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC PREMISE O F AY 2006-07 WAS ORDERS OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS NAME LY 2000-01, 2002-03 AND 2003-04, AND AFTER BEING SET A SIDE BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED OFFICER HAS HI MSELF ACCEPTED THAT FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE IS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 20 OF THE TREATY RATHER BY A RTICLE 23(1) OF THE TREATY AND AS SUCH, THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR AY 2006-07 THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED FALLS UNDER ARTICLE 20 (1) OF THE TREATY I S MISCONCEIVED AND SHOULD NOT BE GONE INTO BY THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL LOOKING INTO THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS A ND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE WOULD SEEK TO PLACE ITS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR MOD I VS DIT REPORTED IN 278 ITR 374, RELEVANT EXTRACT IS AS BELOW: 'IT HAS NOW BECOME AN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE OF LAW T HAT THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT HAVING NEXUS TO THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN THE PARENT PROCEEDING T O CUT ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 10 SHORT THE LITIGATION AND FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. T HE BASIC OBJECT OF THE JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM IS TO PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS EARLY AS POSSIBL E AND COMPREHENSIVELY, EVEN TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT HAS NEXUS OR HAVING ORIGIN TO THE FUNDA MENTAL CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PETITION. ' 6. THAT THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ARTICLE 23 (3) OF INDO UK DTAA CLEARLY GIVES RIGHT TO THE SOURCE STATE (HERE IT IS UK), TO TAX THE INCOME AS AND WHEN IT ACCRUES OR IS PAID TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND THUS, TH E RESIDENT STATE, IS PRECLUDED TO TAX THE SAME INCOME AGAIN AN D TO SUPPORT THE SAID PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE WOULD SEE K TO PLACE ITS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: A. COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF DC IT VS MIDEAST INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 28 SOT 395. B. COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MIDEAST INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO. 1349/2 009' C. COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MS. POOJA BHATT VS DCLT REPORTED IN 26 SOT 574. D. COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS ESSAR ALL LTD. REPORTED IN 47 SOT 139. 7. THAT FURTHER AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND IS COVERED BY ARTI CLE 23(1) OF INDO - UK DTM, THAN EVEN IN THOSE CASES, EQUIVAL ENT CREDIT FOR THE TAXES DEDUCTED IN U.K. WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS IS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF INDO - UK DTM, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN ORDERS OF ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE ARS (KINDLY SEE PAGE 7. OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2000 -01 DATED 30.12.2011). ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 11 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS A ND DECISIONS RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, SPECIALLY PROVISIONS OF INDO-UK D TAA AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WE OBSERVE THAT THE PENSION IS RECEIVED FROM THE EX-EMPLOYER BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LIFE TIME WHILE FAMILY PENSION IS RECEIVED BY THE SPOUSE OR FAMILY MEMBERS OR LEGAL DEPENDENT OF THE DECEASE D EMPLOYEE FROM THE EMPLOYER OF THAT DECEASED EMPLOYEE. FROM THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FAMILY PENSION FROM EMPLOYER OF ASESSEEES DECEASED WIFE, THEREFORE THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT RELATED TO THE PENSION BUT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FAMILY PENSION. 11. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.4.2012 FOR FOU R ASSESSMENT YEARS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE A SSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:- 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: 1. ON THE ISSUE OF AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE PLEA OF FILI NG OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITY, I AGREE WITH TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MERE FILING OF APPE AL BEFORE A HIGHER AUTHORITY CANNOT BE A REASON FOR REJECTION OF A CLAIM. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'ABLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SEIMENS INDIA LIMITED VS K. SUBRAMANIAM 143 ITR ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 12 120 AND 156 ITR 11, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE REJECTED ON THAT GROUND. 2. FURTHER EVEN ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ISSU ES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ARE AS FOLLOWS: A) WHETHER THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE INDIA-U.K TREATY? B) WHETHER THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER ATICLE23 (3) OF THE INDIA-U.K TREATY? C) WHETHER THE TERM MAY BE TAXED IN THE OTHER STATE GIVES THE RIGHT TO THE INDIAN TAX AUTHORITIES TO TA X WHEN TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE SOURCE STATE. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE STATED AT CLAUSE (A) ABOVE , ARTICLE 23(1) DEALS WITH ALL OTHER ITEMS OF INCOME NOT DEALT WITH IN ANY OF THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THIS CONVENTION, WHICH IS BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY A RESIDE NT OF CONTRACTING STATE, WHEREVER ARISING EXCEPT THE FOLL OWING EXCEPTION: 1. IT SHOULD NOT BE INCOME PAID OUT OF TRUSTS OR THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSON IN THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT IS BEING RECEIVED BY SHRI KARAN THAPAR AS NOMINEE O F THE DECEASED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER. FURTHER THE FAM ILY PENSION IS BEING PAID OUT OF THE TRUST OR ESTATE OF THE DECEASED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE BANK AND THUS THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY SHRI KARAN THAPAR IS NOT COVERE D UNDER ARTICLE 23( 1) OF DT AA BETWEEN INDIA AND U.K . WITH REGARD TO ISSUE STATED AT CLAUSE 2(B), ARTICLE 23(3) STATES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 AND 2 OF ARTICLE 23, IF THE ITEM OF INC OME ARISES IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE (U.K IN OUR C ASE) THEN IF U.K CHARGES THE TAX THEN INDIA CANNOT CHARG E ANY ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 13 TAX ON THE SAME INCOME. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE INCO ME HAS ARISEN IN U.K AND THEREFORE ARTICLE 23(3) WILL PREV AIL OVER ARTICLE 23( 1 ) WITH REGARD TO ISSUE STATED AT CLAUSE (C), THE TERM 'MAY BE TAXED IN THE OTHER STATE' IT HAS BEEN POINT ED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THAT VARIOUS COURTS HAVE INTERPRET ED THIS TERM AND HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT IT IS THE SOURCE STATE WHICH HAS THE RIGHT TO TAX IN SUCH A SITUATION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE WHAT THE HONBL E MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS POOJA BHATT VS DC IT (2008) 26 SOT 574 HAS STATED AT PAGE 580 IN THIS RE GARD. IT HAS ALSO BEEN BE POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (2004) 267 ITR 654 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF DCIT VS TORQUOISE INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD. (2008 ) 310 ITR . I HAVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VR.S.R.M. FIRM (1994) 2 08 LTR 400 WHEREIN THE EXPRESSION 'MAY BE TAXED' WAS INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE OTHER CONTRACTING STAT E WAS PRECLUDED FROM TAXING THE INCOME. 1 AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION OF THE COURT S 1 HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM RBS AS FAMILY PENSION CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23(3) OF THE INDIA-U.K TREATY . 12. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS MIDEAST INDIA LTD. (2009 ) 124 TTJ 924 (DEL) G BENCH HELD THAT WHEN THE ENTIRE PROFIT IN QUEST ION WHICH WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN USSR THROUGH ITS PE IN THAT COUNTRY, AND THE SAME WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN USSR ITSELF IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 7(1) OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND USSR, THEN I MPUGNED ADDITION IN ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 14 THIS REGARD MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT J USTIFIED. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA NO. 1349/2009 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, CONF IRMED AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS MIDEAS T INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) THROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 15.12.2009. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH L IN THE CASE OF MS POOJA BHATT VS DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MUMBAI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE FILM ARTIST ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENT OF INDIA WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN AN ENTE RTAINMENT SHOW PERFORMED IN CANADA IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 1994 -95 AND HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN SUM FOR THE PARTICIPATION AND TAX WAS ALSO DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN CANADA IN RESPECT OF SAID RECEIPT/INCOME, THEN IN T HIS SITUATION, IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 18 OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND CANADA, AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TAXED IN INDIA. ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION MAY BE TAXED IN PARA 1 IN ARTICLE 18 H ELD THAT THIS EXPRESSION GIVES ONLY AN OPTION TO THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE TO TAX THE INCOME BUT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTING STATE OF RESIDENCE TO ASSESS THE SAID INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, SUCH EXPRESSION AUTHORIZE ONLY CONTRAC TING STATE OF SOURCE TO TAX SUCH AMOUNT AND BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE CO NTRACTING STATE OF ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 15 RESIDENCE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAXING SUCH INCOME. TH E RELEVANT PARA 6 OF THIS DECISION READS AS UNDER:- 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXPRESSION MAY BE TAXED IN PARAGRAPH 1 IN ARTICLE 18 GIVES ONLY AN OPTION TO THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE TO TAX THE INCOME BUT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTING ST ATE OF RESIDENCE TO ASSESS THE SAID INCOME. ACCORDING TO HER, THIS CONTENTION FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ART ICLE 23 WHICH PROVIDES RELIEF WITH REFERENCE TO TAX PAID OR DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN THE SOURCE STATE. RELIANCE I S PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING IN S.MOHANS CASE (SUPRA). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH EXPRESSION AUTHORIZES ONLY THE CONTRACTING STATE OF SOURCE TO TAX SUCH INCOME AND BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE CONTRACTING STATE OF RESI DENCE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAXING SUCH INCOME. RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF P.V.A.I. KULADAGAN CHETTIAR (SUPRA) AND TORQUOISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA). 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION FROM THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM RBS, UK AND THE SOURCE COUNTRY I.E. UK ALSO DEDUCTE D TAX THEREON AT SOURCE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION FROM UK AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. FROM BARE READING OF ARTICLE 20(1), WE OBSERVED THAT ANY PENSION OTHER THAN A PENSION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 19(2) OF THIS CONVEN TION, OR ANNUITY PAID TO A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE SHALL BE TAXABLE ON LY IN THAT STATE. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT ARTICLE 20(2) IS PERTAINING TO A PERIO DIC PAYMENT MADE IN ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 16 CONSIDERATION OF PAST EMPLOYMENT OR BY WAY OF COMPE NSATION FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION OF EITHER CON TRACTING STATE. THUS, ARTICLE 20 IS RELATED TO PENSION, MEANS THE PAYMENT RECEIVE D BY THE EMPLOYEE IN CONSIDERATION OF PAST EMPLOYMENT. AT THIS POINT, W E TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SECTION 57(IIA) R/W EXPLANATION WHICH DEFINES FAMI LY PENSION AND SECTION 17(1)(II) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SALARY INCLUDES PENSION RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE IN CONSIDERATION OF PAST E MPLOYMENT. THEREFORE ARTICLE 20 HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE FAMILY PENSION W HICH IS GENERALLY RECEIVED BY THE SPOUSE OR FAMILY MEMBERS OR LEGAL D EPENDENT OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE FROM THE EMPLOYER OF DECEASED FAM ILY MEMBER. 15. COMING TO ARTICLE 23, WE OBSERVE THAT ARTICLE 2 3(1) STIPULATES ABOUT THE ITEMS OF INCOME BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY THE RESID ENTS OF A CONTRACTING STATE WHEREVER ARISING, OTHER THAN THE INCOME PAID OUT OF TRUST OR ESTATES OF THE DECEASED PERSON IN THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE NOT DEALT WITHIN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES TO THE ARTICLE 23 OF THIS CONVENTION SHALL BE TAXABLE ONLY IN THAT CONTRACTING STATE. ARTICLE 23 (2) IS NEITHER RELATED TO PENSION NOR RELATED TO FAMILY PENSION. ARTICLE 23( 3) STARTS WITH A WORD NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 AND 2 OF THIS ARTICLE MEANING THEREBY ITEMS OF INCOME OF A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE NOT ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 17 DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF CONVENTION ARISING IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE MAY BE TAXED IN THAT OTHER STATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ARTICLE 23(3) IS RELATED TO THE ITEMS OF INCOME WHI CH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES TO ARTICLE 23(3) OF THIS CONVENT ION, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF ARTICLE 23, THE SAME ARISING IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE MAY BE TAXED IN THAT OTHER STATE. MEANING THEREBY FAMILY PENSION WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF FOREGOING ARTICLES TO THE ARTICLE 23 (3) OF INDO-UK TREATY AND AROSE IN THE O THER CONTRACTING STATE, MAY BE TAXED IN OTHER STATE AND THE SAID RECEIPT OF THE FAMILY PENSION IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 23 OF INDO-UK DTAA AN D THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE RESIDUARY ARTICLE 23(3) OF THIS CONV ENTION AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS RIGHTLY TAXED IN U.K. I.E. SOURCE COUNTRY. ACC ORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE FROM THE EMPLOYER OF DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHT LY TAXED AT SOURCE IN UK AND NO AMOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION IS THUS TAXABLE IN INDIA. 16. AT THIS JUNCTURE, AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS MIDEAST INDIA LT D. (SUPRA), DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MS POOJA BHATT VS DCIT (SUPRA) AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE E XPRESSION MAY BE TAXED ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 18 IN THAT OTHER STATE MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 23(3) AUT HORIZES ONLY THE CONTRACTING STATE OF SOURCE TO TAX SUCH INCOME AND BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, THE CONTRACTING STATE OF RESIDENT IS PRECLUDED FROM TAXING SUCH INCOME, SPECIALLY WHEN THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE CON TRACTING STATE OF SOURCE AND CONTRACTING STATE OF THE RESIDENCE CANNOT TAX I T AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF RESIDENT ASSESSEE. IF ANALOGY ADVANCED BY THE REVE NUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCEPTED AND THE COUNTRY OF SOURCE AS WE LL AS COUNTRY OF RECEIPT, BOTH ARE ALLOWED TO TAX THE SAME INCOME TWICE, THEN AN OBJECT OF DOUBLE TAX AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND TH E PROVISIONS STIPULATED IN THE INDO-UK DTAA WOULD BE OTIOSE. AC CORDINGLY, INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PERVERSE AND WRONG WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CORRECTED BY THE CIT(A) BY HOLDIN G THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EMPLOYER OF DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE COUNTRY OF SOURCE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AND ASS ESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX, THEN THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED SECOND TIME IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE I.E. INDIA. 17. TO SUM UP, ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION , WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE REASONING AND ANALOGY ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CORRECTED BY THE CIT(A) BY ALLOWING APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY OR ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 19 ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. RESULTANTLY , GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ALL FIVE APPEALS BEING DEVOID OF MERITS ARE DISMISSED. C.O. NO.338/DEL/11 18. FOR AY 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O . WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 19. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED ALL APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF FAMILY PENSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE EMPLOYER OF DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TAXABLE IN IND IA AS PER ARTICLE 23(3) OF INDO-UK DTAA CONVENTION, THEREFORE, ISSUE OF LEVYIN G INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS, THUS W E DISMISS THE SAME. 20. IN THE RESULT, ALL FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.05.2014. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 9TH MAY 2014 GS ITA 4441/D/2012 TO 4444/D/2012 & CO 338/D/2011 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 20 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR