Haryana State Horticulture Development Agency, Panchkula V. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

ITA 1134/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6793 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1134/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) HARYANA STATE HORTICULTURE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WARD 3, SERICULTURE COMPLEX, PANCHKULA. SECTION-21, PANCHKULA. PAN: AAATH6708E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMAN PARTI RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), PANCHKULA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEALS) ) DATED 17.9.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 30.4.2014 AND WAS LATE R RECALLED IN PURSUANCE TO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M.A. NO.3/CHD/2015 DATED 9.10.2015. IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAME, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARI NG AND WAS HEARD. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.11.2009 AT NIL IN COME. THE 2 RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 27.03.2009 AT THE RETU RNED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2009 AT THE NIL RETURNED INCOME. LATER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, ON THE LIABILITY SIDE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,74, 00,000/- AS REVENUE GRANT-IN-AID WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITUR E ACCOUNT, WHERE ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.48,25,917.53 HA D BEEN SHOWN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A REG ISTERED SOCIETY U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH IT SHOULD H AVE SHOWN UTILIZATION OF 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS INCL UDING RECEIPTS FROM GRANT-IN-AID FOR CLAIMING ITS ENTIRE INCOME EXEMPT U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAIL ED TO DO SO, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, DATED 17.1.2012, TO RECTIFY THE AFORESTATED MISTAKE OF NOT INCLUDING THE GRANTS-IN -AID RECEIVED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUE NTLY PASSED AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON 5.3.2012 COMP UTING ITS TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.1,11,20,862/-. COMPUTATION OF THE SAME IS PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 2. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), WHO DISMISSED THE ASSES SEES APPEAL. 3 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING GRANT IN AID OF RS 1,74,00,000/- AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREB Y DENYING THE APPELLANT EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING INTEREST OF RS 48,25,918/- AS INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION WITH T HE APPELLANT AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSE SSEE RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDIT Y OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, AS UNDER: 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE. 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 11 OF THE I.T.A.T. RULES, 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONA L GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. IN THE AFORESAID MATTER THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED ON DT. 26.11.07 WHICH HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON DT. 29.12.09. 2. THAT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DT. 05.03.12 RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ALLEG ED GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING REGISTERED U/S 12A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAD FAILED TO UTILIZE 85% OF I TS INCOME TOWARDS ITS OBJECTIVES. IN ARRIVING AT THE SA ID CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED THE GRANT RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEEDING THE JURISDICTION VESTED BY VIRTUE OF THE SECTION 154 SINCE THE SAID PROVISION DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CAR RY OUT 4 RECTIFICATION ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE (AS TO W HETHER GRANT RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTED INC OME OF THE APPELLANT OR NOT) IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE APPELLANT CHALL ENGED THE SAME BY FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. NOT BEING CONVINCED WITH THE PLEADINGS (WRITTEN AS WELL AS ORAL) RENDERED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, T HE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DT. 17.09.13 . 5. ORDER DT. 17.09.13 (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THI S HON'BLE COURT VIDE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED O N DT. 12.07.16. 6. GROUND CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO RECTIFY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE (AS TO WHETHER GRANT RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTED ITS INCOME OR NOT) COULD NOT BE RAISED IN THE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED DUE TO UNINTENTIONAL AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE. THIS GROUND ARISES OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FRESH EXAMINATION OR ENTERTAIN ING OF THE NEW MATERIAL OTHER THAN THE RECORDS BEFORE T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, A HUMBLE PRAYER IS BEING MADE TO THIS HON'BLE COURT TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT T O RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF RULE 11 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 WHICH EMERGE FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FOR WHICH RELIANCE IS BEING PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD V CIT (19 98) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 8. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL EXTRACTED SEPARATELY AT PG. 3 IS BEING PRAYED TO BE ALLOWED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. 8. THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND AT THIS STAGE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES VIS A VIS THE ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND AND WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION AL GROUND RAISED BEFORE US IS A LEGAL GROUND WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FRESH EXAMINATION OR ENTERTAINMENT OF ANY NEW MATERIAL OT HER THAN THE RECORDS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SAME IS, 5 THEREFORE, BEING ADMITTED FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC COMPANY VS. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 10. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING WITH THE ADDITIONAL G ROUND RAISED SINCE IT RAISES A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CHALL ENGING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN THE IMPUGNED CASE. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE OF GRANT-IN-AID, WHETHER IT WAS REVENUE IN NA TURE AND THUS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING UTILIZATION OF THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF 85% AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 O F THE ACT, WAS NOT A CLEAR CUT ISSUE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT REQUIRED INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACT S OF THE CASE TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION AND, THEREFORE, BY N O STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE NON-INCLUSION OF THE SAME IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE TREATED AS A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY RESORTING TO THE POWER GRANTED TO HIM U/S 154 OF TH E ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE GRANT IN AID GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD IN FACT REVEAL THAT THE GRANT IN AID, DID NOT VEST IN THE ASSESSEE AT ALL AND IT HAD TO BE RETURNED BACK OR ADJUSTED AGAINST FUTURE INSTALMENTS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE TERMED AS REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 6 A) THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HORTICULTURE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE STATE GOVERNMENTS TO CREATE AN AUTONOMOUS AGENCY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MISSION PROGRAMME PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.11. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS FORMED AND EMPHASIZED THAT THE OBJECT WAS THEREFORE IMPLEMENTING HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT MISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. B) THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.54 CONVEYING THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME OF HORTICULTURE MISSION WITH AN OUTLAY OF RS. 1000 CRORES DURING THE YEAR 2006-07 AND REQUESTING ALL IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES TO SUBMIT THEIR ACTION PLAN FOR THE YEAR. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT THE GRANT RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WAS TIED UP AND COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AS PER PLAN APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT FROM THE SAID LETTER THAT THE UNSPENT BALANCE OF GRANTS-IN-AID OF THE PRECEDING YEAR HAD TO BE INTIMATED TO THE GOVERNMENT. C) THE LETTER APPROVING THE GRANT IN AID TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 CRORES IN PURSUANCE TO THE EARLIER LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY IN THI S REGARD PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.56 D) LETTER OF THE MINISTRY RELEASING THE SECOND INSTALMENT OF THE FUND FOR THE YEAR PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.59. 7 E) THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR REFLECTING THE GRANTS IN AID RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.62. F) CERTIFICATE FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT CERTIFYING THE GRANTS IN AID RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR ,THE AMOUNT SPENT AND THE SURRENDER OF THE REMAINING UNUTILIZED AMOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST NEXT YEARS GRANT PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.66. 12. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ABO VE DOCUMENTS REVEALED THAT THE GRANTS-IN-AID RECEIVED WERE TIED UP AND DID NOT VEST IN THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST FUTURE GRANTS-IN- AID. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, CHANDIGARH VS. THE PUNJAB ST ATE-E- GOVERNANCE SOCIETY IN ITA NO.75 OF 2011 DATED 21.4. 2011 IN WHICH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS THAT THE GRANT -IN-AID RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE C OULD NOT BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION FOR THE PURPOS E OF INCLUDING IT IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THUS STATED THAT THE CHARACTER/NAT URE OF GRANTS IN AID WAS NOT INVARIABLY REVENUE AND THE SA ME COULD BE ASCERTAINED ONLY AFTER DELVING INTO THE FACTS RE LATING TO THE SAME. LD.COUNSEL, THEREFORE, STATED THAT NON-INCLU SION OF THE SAME IN ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR, COULD BY NO STRETC H OF LOGIC BE TREATED AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD SO AS TO ENABLE 8 THE AO TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY THE SAME U /S 154 OF THE ACT. 13. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT NON INCLUSION OF GRANT-IN-AID IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS A MISTAKE WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM RECORDS AND THUS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY RECTIFIED THE SAME BY RESORTING TO SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO GONE THROU GH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEM ENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE NON INCLUSION OF GRANT-IN-AID RECEIVED FROM THE GO VERNMENT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE NOT BE TREAT ED AS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AMENABLE TO RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 15. ON GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE US AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE PUNJAB STATE-E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY ( SUPRA), IT IS CLEAR THAT GRANTS-IN-AID RECEIVED FROM THE G OVERNMENT ARE NOT NECESSARILY REVENUE IN NATURE. IF THE GRAN TS ARE TIED UP TO BE USED FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSE AND THE UNTILIZ ED PORTION IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST FUTURE GRANTS, TH EY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT HELD THAT GRANTS-IN-AID RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT FO R SPECIFIC PURPOSE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY 9 CONTRIBUTION OR AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. T HE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 4.IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THIS COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2008 I N ITA NO.190 OF 2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH -II VS. M/S PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, CHANDIGARH AND OR DER DATED 31.7.2009 IN ITA NO.666 OF 2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-II VS. M/S PUNJAB ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. IN M/S PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCI L, CHANDIGARH IT WAS HELD THAT GRANTS-IN-AID RECEIVED FR OM THE GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE CANNOT BE TREATED A S VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OR AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE SO CIETY. IN M/S PUNJAB ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNT OF GRANT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS ALSO IN THE NATURE OF GRANT ITS ELF. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUN AL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THIS COURT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. THUS THE NATURE OF THE GRANTS RECEIVED, THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH IT IS RECEIVED, WHETHER UNUTILIZED PORTION RE MAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE OR IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST GRAN TS RECEIVED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR ARE ALL MATTERS TO BE LOOKED INTO TO CHARACTERIZE THE GRANTS RECEIVED AS REVENUE OR CAPITAL. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE REGARDING NATURE OF THE GRANTS RECEIVED WHETHER REVENUE OR OTHERWISE REQUIRES INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, DEFIN ITELY IS NOT A CLEAR-CUT MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE S AME TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE EXERCISE OF POW ER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 WHICH EMPOWERS AOS T O RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, IN THE IM PUGNED CASE, THEREFORE, WE HOLD IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THERE FORE, SET ASIDE. 10 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDI CTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED. 18. THE REMAINING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE D EAL WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND SINCE IN THE ADDITI ONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE US WE HAVE QUASHED THE ORDER P ASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US SINCE THEY ONLY REMAIN ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 11