Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1133/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3501 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1133/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD., VS ASSTT. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A-38, 1 ST FLOOR, MOHAN COOPERATIVE CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, NEW DELHI. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCG6972B ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SATYAJIT GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KUMAR PRANAV, SR. DR ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 02.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.02.2018 PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 IN APPEAL N O.79/14-15 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI, ASSESSEE PREFER RED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ W ITH RULE 8D, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON BOOKS AND PERIODICALS AND FESTIVAL EXPE NSES TO THE EXTENT OF 20% AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,96,685/-. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A C OMPANY DEALING IN THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF INDUSTRIAL GASES, FINA NCE BUSINESS AND POWER GENERATION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THEY H AVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4,50, 60,990/-. THE LEARNED AO ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.7,95,21,401/- MAKING ADDI TIONS, INTER ALIA, RS.1,35,562/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A RE AD WITH RULE 8D, RS.2,22,295/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, RS.5,97,477/- ON ACCOUNT OF FESTIVAL EXPENSES AND RS.13,53,418/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLIN G AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS O N ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BOOKS AND PERIODI CALS, FESTIVAL EXPENSES AND THE TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, HOWEVER, RESTRIC TED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS AND FESTIVAL EXPEN SES TO 20% AS AGAINST 50% MADE BY THE AO. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 3. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, IT IS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT DURING THIS PARTICULAR ASSESSME NT YEAR, NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS GROUND, ASSESSEE PL EADED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A COULD BE MADE. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) FOU ND OUT THAT INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION ADDED BACK A S UM OF RS.11,49,500/- AS THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, HENCE BECAUSE O F THIS ADMISSION, THE 3 ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM CONTENDING THAT THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, THERE IS NO QUESTION O F ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR TH AT BECAUSE OF THE NON SETTLEMENT OF THE ISSUE AS ON THE DATE OF REVISED COMPUTATION, ON A SAFE SIDE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SUM OF RS.11,49,500/- AS THE AMOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BUT IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW IN CIT V S. HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. , ITA NO.486/2014/DEL . THE ASSESSE CLAIMED THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS BAD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBSEQUENTLY IT ST ATED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. VS CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DEL) AND RECENTLY IN PCIT VS. ILFV ENERGY INDIA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. (2017) 29 7 CTR 452 (DEL), IT IS REITERATED THAT WHEN THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARN ED DURING A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REVENUE CANNOT INVOKE SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THAT SCORE. LEARNED D R RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLCIM INDIA LTD. TO DISTINGUISH THE SAME WITH THE DECISION IN CIT VS HERO CYCLES, 323 ITR 158 (P&H), CIT VS LAKHANI MA RKETING, ITA NO.970/2008/P&H; CIT VS SHIVAM MOTORS P. LTD., ITA 88/2014/ALLAHABAD; AND CIT VS CORTECH ENERGY P LTD. 45 TAXMANN.COM 116 (GUJ). HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY 4 MUCH WATER HAD FLOWN UNDER THE BRIDGE AND THIS ISSU E IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA INASMUCH AS THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT D ECIDED IT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOLCIM INDIA LTD. (2014) 272 CTR 542 AND VERY RECENT LY IN PCIT VS. ILFS ENERGY INDIA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., ON A REVIEW OF THE E NTIRE CASE LAW AND IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN C IT VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., 326 ITR 1 (SC) AND HELD THAT THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE LEGAL POSIT ION AND IT WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEE FROM TAKING A STAND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THIS DECIS ION NEEDS TO BE EXTRACTED HERE: 9. MR. ZOHEB HOSSAIN, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNS EL FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT, IN CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA), THIS COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11TH FEBRUARY 20 14 WHICH CLARIFIED THAT SECTION 14A WOULD APPLY EVEN WHEN EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT EARNED IN A PARTICULAR AY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE OTHER DECISION S OF THIS COURT IN CIT-IV V. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (DEL) AND CIT-IV V. HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LTD. (2014) 272 CTR (DEL) 282 DID NOT ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE ABOVE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, WOULD BE DISTI NGUISHABLE. 10. MR. HOSSAIN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO THING IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WHICH SUGGESTED THAT EXEMPT INCOME HAD TO NECES SARILY BE EARNED IN THE AY IN QUESTION FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIO N. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT BY THE ABOVE CBDT CIRCULAR WAS NOT ACCEPTED, THE VERY PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A WOULD BE DEFEATED. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN ACIT V. RATAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. (ORDER DATED 23RD MAY 2008 OF ITAT LUCKNOW) RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. V. ADDL. CIT [2012] 50 SOT 102 (DEL) . 5 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 19. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THIS WILL BE A TRUNCATED READING OF SECTION 14 A AND RULE 8D PARTICULARLY WHEN RULE 8D (1) USES THE EXPRESSION SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME. IT DOES NOT NOTE THAT UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF TAXATION OF NOTIONAL INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. AS EXPLAINED IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) , THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS TO CURB THE PRACTICE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION O F EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME BEING TAXABLE INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME AVAIL OF THE TAX INCENTIVES BY WAY OF EXEMPTION OF EXEMPT INCOME WIT HOUT MAKING ANY APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO E XEMPT INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT IS NOT PERSUADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRC ULAR OF THE CBDT DATED 11TH MAY 2014, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION. 20. IN M/S. REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY RANGE V, CHENNAI (ORDER DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN TCA NO. 520 OF 2016), A SIMILAR CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS NEGATED. THE COURT THERE DECLINED TO APPLY THE CBDT CIRCULAR BY EXPLAINING THAT SECTION 14A IS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE EARNING OF THE ACTUAL INCOME AND NOT NOTIONAL INCOME OR ANTICIPATED INCOME. IT WAS FURT HER EXPLAINED THAT, THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF RULE 8 D IS BY WAY OF A DETERMINATION INVOLVING DIRECT AS WELL AS INDIRECT ATTRIBUTION. THUS, ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE WOULD RESUL T IN THE IMPOSITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD OF COMPUTATION ON NOTIONAL AND ASSUMED INCOME. WE BELIEVE THUS WOULD BE CARRYING THE ARTIFICE TOO FAR . 21. THE DECISIONS IN CIT V. M/S LAKHANI MARKETING INC. 2014 SCC ONLINE P &H 20357, CIT V. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2 009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H), CIT V. SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. (2014) 272 CTR (ALL) 277 HAVE ALL TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. THE DECISION IN TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. 22. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. HOSSAIN THAT, IN THE CO NTEXT OF SECTION 57(III), THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST V. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) EXPLAINED THAT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE EVEN WHERE IN COME WAS NOT ACTUALLY EARNED IN THE AY IN QUESTION. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS DEALT 6 WITH BY THIS COURT IN M/S CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT BY OBSERVING AS UN DER: 20. SINCE THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA), IT IS CONSI DERED NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE TRUE PURPORT OF THE SAID DECISION. IT I S NOTICED TO BEGIN WITH THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT COULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. UNDER SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME. THE S UPREME COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'INCURRED FOR MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME?, DID NOT MEAN THAT ANY INCOME SHOULD IN FAC T HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE. THE COURT EXPLAINED: WHAT S. 57(III) REQUIRES IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE M UST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE THAT I S RELEVANT IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF S. 57(III) AND THAT PURPOSE MU ST BE MAKING OR EARNING OF INCOME. S. 57(III) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THIS PURPO SE MUST BE FULFILLED IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THE EXPENDITURE FOR DEDUCTION. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHALL BE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY IF ANY INCOME IS MADE OR EARNED. THERE IS IN FACT NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF S. 57(III) TO SUGGEST THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE IS MADE SHOULD FRUCTIFY I NTO ANY BENEFIT BY WAY OF RETURN IN THE SHAPE OF INCOME. THE PLAIN NATURAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE OF S. 57(III) IRRESISTIBLY LEADS TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT TO BRING A CASE WITHIN THE SECTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ANY IN COME SHOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPENDITURE.' 21. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF MR. VOHRA T HAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME.' SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ON THE OTHER HAND CONTAINS THE EXPRESSION 'IN R ELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME.' THE DECISION IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA) CANNOT BE USED IN THE REVERSE TO CONTEND TH AT EVEN IF NO INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED CAN BE DISALLOWE D UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 23. THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN ACIT V. RATAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE 7 INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN HELD HEREINBEFORE D O NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. FURTHER, THE MERE FACT THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE AY IN QUESTION, THE AUDITORS MAY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DISALLOWA NCE CANNOT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE LEGAL POSITION. THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEE FROM TAKING A STAND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR IN THE AY IN QUESTION BECAUSE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. 5. THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR INCORPORATED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOKS SHOWS THA T THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.13,94,39,778/- AND SCHEDULE XIII R ELATING TO THE OTHER INCOME SHOWS THAT THIS INCOME WAS EARNED TOWARDS THE INTER EST AND OTHER CHARGES. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO DIVIDEND INCOME IS EARNED DURI NG THIS YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.3.8 OF THE ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT BECAUSE OF REVISING ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND ADDING BACK RS.11,49,500/- AS AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 14A, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE A PPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A IN ITS CASE TO FORM THE BASIS OF UPH OLDING THE ADDITION, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. 6. COMING TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E OUT OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS AND FESTIVAL EXPENSES, FROM PAGE NO.45, 46 AND 49, WE FIND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR ALL THE BRANCHES OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS. ADMITTEDLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND N EITHER THE LEARNED AO NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) FIND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT TO SUSTAIN THE 8 ADDITION EITHER AT 50% OR 20%, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION BY THE AUTHORITIES BELLOWING POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUST AINED. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE 20% OF DISALLOWANCE ALSO AS RESTRICTED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO WILL DELETE THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE. 7. TURNING TO THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES, THE REASONIN G GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON TRA VELLING OF FIVE CHINESE ENGINEERS, NOT BEING THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES, THE E XPENSES INCURRED ON THEM CANNOT CONSTITUTE THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ONCE TH E EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SUCH, THEIR TRAVEL EXPENSES WILL EITHER THEIRS O R THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO NECESSITY TO INCUR SUCH EXPENDITURE. LEARNED AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. M/S ASAS INVESTMENTS P. LTD. IN ITA NO.4353/DEL/2016 DECIDED ON 28.4.2017 WHEREI N VIDE PARA 12, IT STATED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE EXIGENCIES OF THE BUSINESS AND NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE PERSONAL ELEMENT WAS INVOLVED, IN THE ABSENCE OF DO UBTING THE INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE MERELY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FOR THE EMPLOYER OF THE EMPLOYEES, WHO TR AVELLED. APART FROM THAT 9 WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN FOR WHOSE BUSINESS PURPOSE THE TRAVEL OCCURRED AND WHETHER REALLY THE TRAVEL TOOK PLACE OR NOT. SINCE THERE IS NO DOUBT ENTERTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRE D THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES OR THAT SUCH TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE NOT RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DOUBT ENT ERTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF LEGAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITI ON ON THIS SCORE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR