Income Tax Officer, Dharamashala V. Asia Health Resorts Village Satobari,

ITA 1211/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8226 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 80IC; 80IC; 22

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1297/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE ITO, VS. ASIA HEALTH RESORTS, DHARMSHALA VILLAGE SATOBARI DHARMAMSHALA PAN NO. AAIFA5196K & ITA NO. 1211/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ITO, VS. ASIA HEALTH RESORTS, DHARMSHALA VILLAGE SATOBARI DHARMAMSHALA PAN NO. AAIFA5196K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. NIKHIL GOYAL DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 ORDER BOTH THE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), PALAMPUR DATED 30.09.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND DATED 29.08.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS . 39,56,970/- AND RS. 2 46,98,234/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 RESPECTIVELY. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BRIEFLY THE FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ECO- TOURISM INDUSTRY I.E. HOTEL-CUM-RESORT VILLAGE SATO BARI, P.O. TOTRANI, TEHSIL DHARMSHALA CANTT IN HIMACHAL PRADESH AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME DECLRING NET TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AS THE SAID SECTION DO NOT INTEND TO BE AV AILABLE TO THE HOTELS AND RESORTS ETC. AND THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH HOTE LS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ONLY IF THEY FORM PART OF AN ECO-TOURISM PROJECT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEF ORE LD. CIT(A) AND DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HOTEL RUN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A HOTEL-CUM-RESORT AND FULFILLS ALL THE NORMS REQUIRED BEING AN ECO-TOURISM HOTEL. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A HOTE L WHICH IS DULY APPROVED BY THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND THE H.P. STATE POLLUT ION CONTROL BOARD BY ISSUING OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I. E. RUNNING AN ECO-TOURISM HOTEL-CUM-RESORT HAVING THE FACILITIES OF SPA AND AMUSEMENT / ENTERTAINMENT IS CORRECT AND LEGALLY SU STAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ 3 TEMPO LTD VS. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) IN WHIC H IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION FOR PROMOTING ECONOMY GROWTH HAD TO B E INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH ON 22.6.2012 IN THE CASE OF RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR IN ITA NO. 152, AND 1144 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE REVENUE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH WHO VIDE ORDERS P ASSED ON 2 ND AUGUST 2013 IN ITA NO. 87/CHD/2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL FACTS OF THE C ASE AS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.8.2013 (SUPRA), DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND IN THE CASE OF CIT V AANCHAL HOTELS (P) LTD 70 TAXMAN.COM 330 HELD AS UN DER:- IT: WHERE ASSESSEE SET UP HOTEL IN UTTARANCHAL, IT COULD NOT AVAIL DEDUCTION ON HOTEL-INCOME MERELY ON BASIS OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM POLLUTION DEPARTMENT; ONLY HOTELS WHICH WERE SET UP AS ECOTOURISM UNITS WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC 4 HE HAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) MAY BE REVERSED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R ELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 2.8.2013 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON REC ORD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE PREFERRED A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.8.2013 BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA IN ITA NO. 10 OF 2014 WHICH HAVE B EEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.7.2016 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS ALSO PLACED O RECORD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARRIVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL (DB) IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE REACHED THE FINALITY AND IS BINDING ON THE SMC BENCH. LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF AAN CHAL HOTEL (P) LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHAB LE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONLY HOTELS WHICH WERE SET UP AS ECO-TOURISM UNITS OR HAVING SET UP AS ECO-TOU RISM OR UNITS WERE EXPANDED AS SUCH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SE CTION 80IC. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAN D RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING O RDER AFRESH. THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASS ESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING THE ECO-TOURISM 5 HOTEL. IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THAT DEPARTME NT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAGHUN ATH SINGH THAKUR (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT SINC E THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, IN THE ORDER TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, HE HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE SUBJECT TO THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE. IT WOULD THEREFORE, PROVE THAT FACT S ARE IDENTICAL AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR (SUPRA). NO INDEPENDENT FIND ING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS, HOWEVER, HIS ORDER WA S SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA WHO ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BE NCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S ASIA HEALTH RESORTS IN ITA NO. 87/CHD/2 013 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 2.8.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE. THE FINDINGS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN P ARAS 10 TO 16 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 10. GROUND NO.1, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HOTEL IN DISTRICT DHARMSHALA. THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM RUNNING OF HOTEL CANNOT BE TERMED AS AN ACTIVITY OF ECO-TOURISM. 6 11. ON APPEAL, RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR IN ITA NOS. 152 & 469/CHD/20 10 & 1144/CHD/2010 WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEDUCTION WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION. 12 BEFORE US, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIN D THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 4. THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF STAND- ALONE HOTELS STANDS DECIDED BY MY ORDER DATED 04.11.2011 IN APPEAL NO. IT/238/2010-11/SML IN THE CASE OF SH. RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR, HOTEL MARINA, THE MALL, SHIMLA FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE VIEWS HELD BY ME O N THE GIVEN SUBJECT ARE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN THE SA ID ORDER. THE HOTEL BEING RUN BY THE APPELLANT IS ALSO A STAND-ALONE NORMAL HOTEL, AND NOT A PART OF ANY ECO - TOURISM PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH B IN THE CASE OF SH. RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR VIDE THEIR OR ORDER DATED 22 ND JUNE, 2012 HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON TH E GROUND THAT THE TERM HOTEL IS INCLUDED IN THE WOR D ECO-TOURISM UNDER ITEM 15 IN PART-C OF THE XIV SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND THAT THE SPECIA L PROVISIONS ARE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADE SH. WITH A VIEW TO MAINTAINING THE JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY , THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED I N 7 DEFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH. 15. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE ISSUE H AS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 15 2 & 469/CHD/2010 & 1144/CHD/2010 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR (SUPRA) . THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ECO-TOURISM HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 20, WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER:- 20. UNDER THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME T AX ACT, LIST OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR OPERATIONS ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ARE ENLISTE D. PART-C IS IN RELATION TO THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRAD ESH AND STATE OF UTTRANCHAL. ITEM NO. 15 IN PART-C OF T HE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE READS AS UNDER: 'ECO-TOURISM INCLUDING HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT/AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROPEWAYS'. 21. THE ABOVE SAID DEFINITION AND THE OPERATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN THE FIELD OF ECO-TOURISM ARE EXCLUSI VELY DEFINED BY THE ACT TO INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS OF INFRASTRUCTURE I.E. HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT/AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ROPE WAYS . IN VI EW OF THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, IT TRANSPIRES THAT INCENTIVES ARE PROVIDED TO THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES FOR SETTING UP INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE ST ATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OR STATE OF UTTRANCHAL IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ECO-TOURISM WHICH IN TURN INCLUDES SETTING UP OF HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT/AMUSEMENT PA RKS AND ROPEWAYS IN SUPPORT OF THE POLICY OF ENCOURAGIN G TOURISM IN THE STATE. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPL E THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCENTIVE OR GROWTH AND DEVELOPME NT OF THE STATE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY, IN OR DER TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES, WHICH ESTABLISHES ITS 8 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES FOR FURTHER ANCE OF THE OBJECT OF THE POLICY FRAMED THEREUNDER. IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE STATUTE HAS PROVIDED DEDUCTION BY WAY OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO SUCH UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTI AL EXPANSION DURING THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD WITHIN THE STATE, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT BY WAY OF DEDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINES S, WHICH IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE I.E. RELATING TO SECTION 8OIC (2)(B) OF THE ACT WOULD BE 100% OF SUC H PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENC ING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND 25% OF THE PRO FITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE NEXT FIVE ASSESS MENT YEARS. THE DEFINITION OF ECO-TOURISM UNDER THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE IS INCLUSIVE DEFINITION AND INCLUDES WITHIN ITS DEFINITION THE PROVISIONS BY WA Y OF HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT / AMUSEMENT PAR TS AND ROPEWAYS. HOWEVER, THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HAS FURTHER RELIED DOWN BROAD PARAMETERS FO R THE GRANT OF STATUS ECO-TOURISM TO AN UNDERTAKING O R ENTERPRISES WHICH IN TURN HAS TO OBTAIN NO OBJECTI ON CERTIFICATE UNDER THE NORMS SET UP BY THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. WHERE AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES FULFILLS THE ABOVE SAID CONDITIONS, IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC (2)(B) OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE D EDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 7. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REVENUE PREFE RRED APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN 9 ITA NO. 10 OF 2014. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEA L HAVE BEEN DISMISSED VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 27.7.2016 THOUGH ON LOW TAX EFFECT. THE COPY OF THE ORDERS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS, TH EREFORE, ESTABLISHED ON RECORDS THAT FINDING OF THE FACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REACHED FINALITY THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ECO-TO URISM INDUSTRY AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION MERELY BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS PENDING IN TH E HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HOTEL I S RUN BY THE ASSESSEE AND A HOTEL-CUM-RESORT ARE FALLS UNDER THE NORMS REQUIR ED FOR AN ECO-TOURISM HOTEL. THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE DATED 2.8. 2013 PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E ITAT, CHANDIGAR H BENCH IS BINDING ON THE SMC BENCH. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF AANCHAL HOTE L (P) LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT W HILE REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE GIVEN CER TAIN OBSERVATION DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER AF RESH. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS NOT FINALLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. T HEREFORE, ON SAME ISSUE, FINDING OF FACT REACHED FINALITY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WOULD BE BEST PRECEDENT TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE PURP OSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.8.2013 IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRA RY VIEW ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 10 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR